LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Presented  by 


PHns.X.'P.  Xe+cnc^rr^.- 


^,T 


CLOSE  COMMUNIQ;!^,;:.,,^^:.-, 

•t 

1920 

OPEX  COMMUISriON'? 


AN 


EXPERIENCE  AND  AN  ARGUMENT. 


BY 

y 

CEAMMOND  KENNEDY. 


NEW  YORK : 
AMERICAN    NEWS    COMPANY, 

119  AND  121  Nassau  St. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1868,  by 

CEAMMOND     KENNEDY, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the  South- 
em  District  of  New  York. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE. 

Preface 5 

An  Experience 13 

The  Lord's  Supper  as  Instituted  by  Himself,  and  Who  are  the 

Worthy  Communicants 35 

The  Baptism  of  the  First  Communicants 52 

Apostolic  Example 75 

Water  Baptism  and  Spirit  Baptism  Distinguished 95 

Intercommunion 108 

Appendix 118 

1.  Eating  and  Drinking  "  Damnation  " 118 

2.  The  Scribes 119 

3.  The  Baptism  of  Proselytes 121 

4.  The  Rebaptism  of  the  Ephesian  Discip'es 124 

5.  Baptism  for  the  Dead 130 

6.  A  Few  of  Forty-one  Facts  Criticised 133 

7.  Howell  on  Communion 149 

8.  Andrew  Fuller  on  Communion 154 

9.  '^ The  Church" 1G8 

3 


PEEFAOE 


As  far  as  the  method  and  subjects  of  water  hap- 
tism  were  concerned,  it  was  his  reading  of  the  New 
Testament  when  he  was  a  boy  that  made  the  author 
a  Baptist ;  but  he  became  a  close  communionist  by 
friendly  administrations  coated  with  logic,  which  he 
took  for  the  pure  article  throughout,  and  which 
affected  him  for  a  long  time,  owing  to  the  confidence 
which  he  had  in  their  strength.  When  the  hold  of 
these  arguments  upon  him  was  weakened,  he  did 
not  consult  any  work  on  open  communion  ;  and 
when,  after  much  feeling  and  meditation,  his  views 
were  changed,  and  he  decided  to  give  them  expres- 
sion, he  purposely  avoided  Eobert  Hall  on  the  sub- 
ject in  hand.  His  admiration  for  him  was  great, 
but  his  desire  to  depict  the  very  process  of  the 
change,  to  make  his  book  subjective  through  and 


6  PREFACE. 

through,  was  greater.  And,  although  the  title  came  to 
him  like  a  revelation,  "••'•  neither  did  he  read  John  Bun- 
yan  on  the  same  side  any  further  than  his  argument 
to  show,  that,  if  communion  be  one  of  the  "  all 
things ''  which  disciples  are  to  be  taught  to  observe 
after  immersion  in  water,  and  never  at  all  if  not 
after  water  baptism,  then  love  to  God  and  one 
another,  preaching  and  praying,  "all  things,"  indeed, 
"whatsoever"  Christ  has  commanded,  are  so  con- 
ditioned. This  seemed  to  the  author  both  awful 
and  absurd,  for  it  made  him  feel  at  once,  that,  if  it 
were  true,  he  was  awfully  and  absurdly  mistaken. 
But  he  did  not  know,  that,  by  as  much  as  we  are 
quick  to  apprehend  the  relation  which  a  statement 
sustains  to  our  convictions  or  our  prejudices,  we  are 
often  slow  to  consider  whether  or  not  it  be  true. 
This  disposition  does  not  characterize  the  world  of 
to-day  so  much  as  that  of  the  past,  for  discoveries 
and  inventions  do  not  wait  so  long  for  a  fair  trial, 
and  thoughts  are  judged  rather  by  what  they  are 
than  by  the  run  of  thinking  before. 

*  "  Differences  of  Judgment  on  Water  Baptism  no  Bar  to  Com- 
munion." 


PREFACE.  7 

The  Author  does  not  use  the  term  "close  com- 
munion" invidiously,  but  as  a  convenient  name  for 
the  practice  under  consideration. 

It  will  be  noticed  in  his  "Experience"  that  the 
main  barrier  which  kept  him  from  open  communion 
was  the  doctrine  of  Indorsement.  This  was  so 
because  he  then  regarded  water  baptism  as  essential 
to  the  Lord's  supper,  and  feared  that  he  would  sanc- 
tion what  he  considered  the  double  error  of  Pedo- 
baptists  in  the  method  and  subjects  of  the  former, 
by  inviting  them  to  the  latter,  or  partaking  of  it 
with  them.  It  was  not  until  he  saw  that  the  loving 
command  of  Christ, "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  Me," 
gave  the  requisite  authority  to  all  His  disciples,  and 
heard  Paul's  question,  "  Who  art  thou  that  judges t 
another  man's  servant  ?  "  with  the  conclusive  rejoin- 
der, "To  his  own  master  he  standeth,  or  falleth," 
that  he  felt  free  to  commune  with  fellow  Christians, 
whom  he  considered,  as  far  as  water  baptism  was 
concerned,  unbaptized. 

At  this  stage  he  would  have  appreciated  the  noble 
apology  which  was  made  recently  by  Dean  Alford  for 
participating  in  the  exercises  of  Cheshunt  College, 


8 


PREFACE. 


and  thereby  fraternizing  with  Congregationalists. 
"  I  claim  to  be,"  said  this  minister  of  truth,  *^  as  to 
every  church  doctrine,  unchanged  by  fraternization 
with  those  who  differ  from  us  ;  and  they,  on  their 
part,  stand  on  the  same  ground.  On  the  firm  main- 
tainance  of  this  principle  all  true  recognition  and 
union  depend" 

But  a  diligent  study  of  the  Scriptures  has  taken 
the  Author  beyond  this  liberty  into  the  convic- 
tion, that,  however  appropriate  may  be  the  order 
which  has  prevailed  in  Christendom,  the  Lord's 
supper  is  not  so  connected  with  water  baptism  that 
submission  to  the  one  is  necessary  to  the  observance 
of  the  other. 

Anticipating  the  objection  which  has  been  made 
before,  that  it  is  late  in  the  day  of  the  world 
and  the  church  to  intimate  that  any  new  les- 
son, so  different  from  the  ancient  habit,  is  yet  to 
be  learned  from  the  divine  word,  he  replies  that 
it  will  always  be  an  inexhausted  thesaurus,  and 
that  the  jewels  which  have  been  worn  by  the  .. 
bride  of  Christ  for  ages  will  ever  sparkle  with  new 
combinations  of  colors  in  the  unceasing  and  increas- 


PREFACE.  9 

ing  liglit  from  God.  That  true  pastor,  John  RoTd- 
inson,  knew  well  that  the  wisest  and  devoutest  of 
his  time,  far  less  the  pedants  and  the  bigots,  had  not 
comprehended  the  sum  of  revealed  truth,  when  he 
said  to  his  flock,  ere  the  Mayflower  bore  him  and 
the  new  world  from  Leyden  :  "  I  charge  you  before 
God  and  His  blessed  angels,  that  you  follow  me  no 
further  than  you  have  seen  me  follow  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  The  Lord  has  more  truth  to  break  yet  out 
of  His  holy  ivord.  I  cannot  sufficiently  bewail  the 
condition  of  the  reformed  churches,  who  are  come  to 
a  period  in  religion,  and  will  go  at  present  no  fur- 
ther than  the  instruments  of  their  reformation., 
Luther  and  Calvin  were  shining  lights  in  their  time, 
hut  they  penetrated  not  into  the  ivhole  counsel  of 
God.  I  beseech  you,  remember  it — 'tis  an  article 
of  your  church  covenant — that  you  be  ready  to  re- 
ceive whatever  truth  shall  be  made  known  to  you 
from  the  written  word  of  God." 

Luther,  too,  who  was  free  to  use  the  argument 
from  human  authority  when  it  suited  him,  had 
scarcely  grace  enough  to  receive  it  kindly  from 
Eome  ;  for  in  his  commentary  on  Galatians  he.thus 


10  PREFACE. 

defiantly  makes  his  complaint :  "  Even  so  the  pope 
at  this  day,  when  he  hath  no  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
ture to  defend  himself  withal,  useth  this  one  argu- 
ment continually  against  us,  'the  Church,  the 
Church/  Thinkest  thou  that  God  is  so  offended 
that  for  a  few  heretics  of  Luther's  sect  He  will  cast 
off  His  whole  Church  ?  Thinkest  thou  that  He 
would  leave  His  Church  in  error  so  many  hundred 
years  ?  And  this  he  mightily  maintaineth,  '  that 
the  Church  can  never  be  overthrown/  Now,  like  as 
many  are  moved  with  this  argument  at  this  day,  so, 
in  Paul's  time,  these  false  apostles,  through  great 
bragging,  and  setting  forth  of  their  own  praises, 
blinded  the  eyes  of  the  Galatians,  so  that  Paul  lost 
his  authority  among  them,  and  his  doctrine  was 
brought  into  suspicion/' 

All  that  the  Author  has  written  to  show  that  the 
Scriptures  do  not  make  water  baptism  a  prerequisite 
to  communion,  is  opposed  to  the  creeds  of  Pedobap- 
tists  everywhere ;  and  therefore  it  will  be  seriously 
misapplied  if  it  is  directed  exclusively  or  mainly 
against  the  close-communion  Baptists.  It  is  for 
many  others,  and  but  few  of  them,  that  the  chapter 


PREFACE.  11 

on  "Water  Baptism  and   Spirit  Baptism  Distin- 
guished/' is  needed  or  intended. 

However  his  zeal  for  his  convictions  may  seem  to 
contradict  his  profession,  the  Author  is  sure  himself, 
and  is  anxious  to  have  it  believed  by  his  kindred  in 
Christ,  that  he  speaks  the  truth,  as  he  understands 
it,  in  love,  and  distinguishes  between  the  close  com- 
munionist,  who  is  his  brother,  and  the  theory  and 
practice  which  he  is  constrained  to  oppose.  If  he 
has  written  anything  of  another  spirit,  he  hopes  that 
it  will  be  ascribed  to  the  heat  of  the  moment  rather 
than  the  grain  of  the  heart,  for  he  counts  it  a  sin, 
in  view  of  the  general  discussion  of  the  subject 
which  is  impending,  and  the  probable  denomina- 
tional division,  to  say  a  word  to  weaken  Christian 
love,  or  kindle  a  counter  flame.  Underneath  and 
notwithstanding  all  our  differences,  this  life  from 
God  doth  still  remain,  and  make  us  one,  for  it  is  the 
"Charity"  which  "never  faileth,"  and  of  which  it 
must  always  be  said,  though  Faith  and  Hope  be 
standing  by,  that  "  the  greatest  of  these  is  Charity." 


CLOSE  OOMMUK'IOE", 


OB 


OPEN    COMMUNION? 


AN  EXPEEIENCE. 
When  I  joined  the  Baptists,  I  felt  that  I  was  in 
the  midst  of  certainties.     There  was  no  doubt  about 
anything.    Calvin  was  infallible — except  in  his  views 
of  the  method  and  subjects  of  baptism.     I  studied 
him  more  than  his  Master,  and  I  looked  at  the  Lord 
and  all  His  revelations  in  nature  and  grace  through 
this  one  man,  and  therefore  I  saw  them  "through  a 
glass  darkly."    In  preaching,  I  sometimes  epitomized 
his  teachings,  as  I  understood  them,  thus  :  "  God 
knows,  and  therefore  has  foreordained,  how  many, 
and  who,  of  you  will  be  saved.     You  will  believe. 
The  Spirit  will  help  you.     You  cannot  resist  Him. 
The  rest  of  you  will  be  damned."    I  seldom  dared  to 
follow  the  same  line  of  argument  in  the  case  of  the 
unhappy  part  of  my  audience,  but  I  knew  that  it 
13 


14       CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

was  a  short  and  plain  road  to  tlie  dread  dark  ending. 
Arminians,  charitably  speaking,  were  fearfully  mis- 
taken, and  sadly  deceived  ;  and  Fullerism  was  a 
dangerous  compromise.  Then  I  gloried  in  being  a 
Calvinist  ;  but  another  of  the  names  borne  by  the 
different  ideas  which  their  subjects  agree  to  call  or- 
thodox, had  to  be  attached  to  me  at  my  examination 
for  ordination,  when  it  appeared  that  I  no  longer  be- 
lieved in  the  Limited  Atonement  ;  and,  so,  a  friend, 
who  wanted  me  to  pass,  kindly  dubbed  me  a  Ful- 
lerite.  A  classification  of  opinions  has  its  use,  but 
when  systems  are  so  absolutely  standards  that  refer- 
ence is  habitually  made  to  them,  differing,  as  they 
do,  while  the  Word  of  God  lies  open,  and  the  right 
of  private  interpretation  is  a  fundamental  of  Protes- 
tantism, there  is  ample  reason  to  suspect  an  abuse ; 
especially  when  we  feel  that  Christ  is  still  with  us, 
and  is  leading  us  into  truth.  It  did  not  occur  to  me 
then,  as  it  has  so  often  and  so  painfully  impressed 
me  since,  that  in  these  names,  and  many  others,  by 
which  Christians  describe  themselves,  we  may  see 
how  history  repeats  itself,  and  that  the  Church  at 
Corinth  was  the  prototype  of  a  vast  succession  : 
"  Now  this  I  say  that  every  one  of  you  saith,  I  am 
of  Paul  ;  and  I  of  Apollos  ;  and  I  of  Cephas  ;  and 
I  of  Christ.     Is  Christ  divided  ?     Was  Paul  cruci- 


AN   EXPERIENCE.  15 

fied  for  you  ?  or  were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Paul  ?  "^  In  these  days  I  believed  in  one  baptism, 
and  I  believe  in  it  now,  but  then  it  was  always  in 
water,  and  under  it.  To  this  water  baptism  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  had  invariably  to  be 
shaped.  I  was  troubled  that  in  Isaiah's  prophecy  of 
Christ's  kingdom  it  should  be  said,  "  So  shall  He 
sprinkle  many  nations,"^  and  that  Joel  in  recording 
the  divine  promise  had  been  inspired  to  say :  "I  will 
pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh^  ;"  but  while 
wondering  that  cloven  tongues  of  fire  denoted  the 
fulfilment,  I  was  comforted  because  it  came  with  "a 
sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind, 
which  filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting.''* 
So  anxious  was  I  to  have  a  bodily  immersion,  that 
sound  would  do  instead  of  water  or  spirit,  if  nothing 
else  was  available.  Close  communion  was  a  loo:ical, 
if  not  a  pleasant  necessity.  The  logic  seemed  simple, 
clear,  and  conclusive.  Baptism  was  a  prerequisite 
to  communion,  nothing  but  dipping  was  baptism, 
and  therefore  none  but  the  dipped  could  properly 
commune.  It  followed  that  Baptists  should  in- 
vite to  the  communion  none  but  "  members  of  sister 
churches  of  the  same  faith  and  order,  in  good  and 
regular  standing,"  and  should  commune  with  these 

1 1  Cor.  i.,  12-15.     2  Isa.  lii.,  15.     s  Joel  ii.,  28.     Ucts  ii.,  2. 


16       CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION? 

only.  Here  it  all  was  in  a  nutshell,  and  that  was 
my  palace,  or  my  prison,  as  I  chose  to  regard  it. 
There  was  no  escape  from  it,  and  wisdom  would 
make  the  best  of  it.  Of  course  I  was  wise,  and 
magnified  my  position.  I  was  standing  up  for  a 
principle ;  yea,  moreover,  I  was  suffering  for  it,  for  not 
without  pain  I  refused  to  sit  at  the  Lord's  supper 
with  so  many  whom  He  loved,  and  who  loved  Him, 
as  well  as  the  disciple  that  leaned  on  His  bosom. 
The  longing  for  their  presence  was  all  very  well,  but 
obedience  was  better.  If  in  remembering  that  the 
Master  said,  "Do  this  in  remembrance  of  Me,"  I  ever 
desired  to  do  it  with  His  disciples  and  my  kindred  in 
Him,  outside  of  the  Baptist  churches,  I  was  to  fortify 
myself  with  arguments,  and  not  to  let  my  heart  get 
the  better  of  my  head.  That  Christ  was  the  vine, 
and  believers  the  branches,  that  there  was  vital  union 
among  them  here  below,  and  that  it  would  be  perfect 
yonder,  above,  was  true  and  most  blessed,  but  not 
at  all  relevant  to  the  question  of  communion.  This 
was  my  heart  again,  and  I  knew  that  it  was  deceit- 
ful above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked.  Yes, 
but  even  Solomon  speaking  for  God  had  said :  "  My 
son,  give  me  thy  heart/'^  and  Paul  had  told  us  that 
"with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness  '"^ 

«Prov.  xxiii.,  26.  6Rom.  x.,  10. 


AN   EXPERIENCE.  17 

and  all  the  preparation  wliich  the  ennuch  had  needed 
for  baptism  was  implied  in  Philip's  answer  :  "If 
thou  belie  vest  with  all  thine  heart  thou  mayest."^  So 
it  appeared,  that,  after  all,  my  heart  was  an  important 
part  of  me  in  the  fundamentals  of  religion,  and  I 
suspected  that  perhaps  it  ought  to  be  heard  on  sub- 
ordinates. But  then,  was  I  not  under  the  most 
solemn  obligations  to  protest  against  infant  baptism, 
which  was  the  "pillar  of  popery,"  and  against 
sprinkling,  which  had  never  been  substituted  for 
dipping  till  the  heresy  prevailed  that  baptism  was 
necessary  to  salvation,  and  parents  had  to  choose  be* 
tween  having  their  weak  babies  catch  cold  in  the 
font,  and  leaving  them  liable,  unbaptized,  to  death 
and  damnation  ?  If  I  communed  with  Pedobaptist 
Christians  I  would  sanction  and  confirm  them  in 
these  grave  errors,  which  took  them  into  an  unscrip- 
tural  communion  and  an  unscriptural  church.  Some- 
times I  queried  whether  our  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
supper  together  would  necessarily  involve  this  de- 
plorable result ;  and  whether,  if  it  followed,  it  would 
not  be  because  we  said  it  would.  Were  there  no 
differences  inside  of  our  own  denomination  ?  Did 
I  not  indorse  the  doctrine  of  a  General  Atonement 
by  partaking  of  the  symbolic  bread  and  wine  with  my 

'Acts  viii.,  37. 


18        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

deluded  brother  who  held  to  that  heresy  ?  Why  were 
the  forms  of  water  ba|)tism  and  its  administration 
to  infants  so  vitally  connected  with  communion  that 
it  indorsed  them,  and  not  other  opinions  and  prac- 
tices ?  The  final  appeal  was  always  "  to  the  law 
and  the  testimony/'  which  meant  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  was  made  with  so  much  confidence  that 
my  interpretations,  and  even  my  inferences,  or  rather 
those  to  which  I  was  helped,  were  either  identified 
with  the  authority  itself,  or  relied  upon  as  if  they 
shared  its  inspiration.  John's  baptism  was  not  only 
"  from  heaven,"  but  it  was  also  "  Christian  bap- 
tism ;"  all  the  Apostles  were  baptized  ;  Paul  did 
not  rebaptize  the  Ephesian  disciples,  who  had  been 
baptized  "unto  John's  baptism,"  but  had  not  .so 
much  as  heard  whether  there  was  any  Holy  Ghost  ; 
and  apostolic  example  uniformly  sustained  close 
communion,  despite  the  fact  that  as  far  as  we  know, 
Christians  did  not  differ  then  about  the  form  and 
subjects  of  baptism. 

Although  I  settled  down  into  this  belief  and  prac- 
tice, I  was  not  always  free  from  doubt.  Whenever 
I  felt  that  they  who  loved  Christ  were  one  family, 
and  when  I  used  to  read  the  accounts  of  His  insti- 
tution of  the  Supper  in  the  Gospel,  I  w^as  troubled 
that  I  could  celebrate  it  with  none  but  Bajjtists. 


AN   EXPERIENCE.  19 

Of  course  they  were  good  enough  company,  but  I 
yearned  to  see  the  faces  of  some  others  of  my 
brethren  as  a  sign  that  our  Saviour's  prayer  for  us 
was  answered  :  "  That  they  all  may  be  one  ;  as  Thou 
Father  art  in  me  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may 
be  one  in  us  ;  that  the  world  may  believe  that  Thou 
hast  sent  me."^  But  I  was  told  that  the  fault  was 
theirs,  not  ours,  and  that  the  ordinance  did  not  ex- 
press Christian  fellowship.  Still  it  was  in  remem- 
brance of  Him,  and  my  heart  could  not  see  why  His 
disciples  might  not  thus  remember  Him  together. 
The  consideration  that  it  was  really  in  obedience  to 
Him,  and  for  their  good — not  in  self-righteousness 
and  exclusiveness,  but  in  love  and  humility — that  I 
refused  to  commune  with  them,  had  the  most  influ- 
ence upon  me,  and  kept  me  in  the  Baptist  ranks. 
But  almost  as  often  as  I  partook  of  these  most 
sacred  symbols,  I  had  to  think  over  the  reasons  why 
I  could  not  partake  with  other  disciples — for  in- 
stance with  my  mother.  Not  that  this  was  the 
hardest  case,  for  Christian  experience  had  taught  me 
somewhat  of  Christ's  meaning  when,  in  announcing 
the  new  law  of  relationship,  "He  stretched  forth 
His  hand  toward  His  disciples  and  said.  Behold  my 
mother  and  my  brethren  !     For  whosoever  shall  do 

^John  xvii.,  21. 


20       CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  the  same 
is  my  brother,  and  sister  and  mother."^  "  Yes,"  a 
Baptist  friend  might  answer,  "but  that's  just  what 
the  Pedobaptists  do  not  do  ;  it's  the  will  of  God  that 
they  should  be  immersed."  If  I  rejoined  :  "  This  not 
only  excludes  them  from  supping  with  us,  but  also 
with  the  Lord  both  here  and  hereafter,"  I  might  be 
told  that  their  failure  in  professing  Him  properly 
would  be  forgiven,  but  that  we  must  guard  His  table 
till  He  set  it  in  heaven. 

I  suspected  then,  and  I  think  I  see  clearly  now, 
tliat  it  was  detrimental  to  my  s^^iritual  growth  to  be 
compelled  to  justify  myself  in  communing  apart — to 
consider,  almost  as  often  as  I  communed,  the  reasons 
why  I  should  sit,  as  it  were,  at  a  separate  table  in  a 
corner,  while  most  of  the  family  were  keeping 
Thanksgiving  round  another  board  in  the  old  home- 
stead. In  presence  of  these  memorials  I  ought  rather 
to  have  been  thinking  of  Him,  and  how  His  love  so 
joins  all  believers  to  each  other  and  to  Himself,  that 
they  are  "  His  body,  and  members  in  particular."^^ 
And  so  I  often  did,  but  my  thoughts  of  spiritual 
union  had  the  striking  and  abnormal  background  of 
division,  and  of  absence  from  the  feast  where  Love 
presides,  and  where   the  past,  with  Christ's  Cross 

SiMatt.  xii.,  49,  50.  i  ^l  Cor.  xii.,  27. 


AN    EXFERIENCE.  21 

and  our  sins,  appears  to  grateful  Memory,  and  the 
future,  with  His  crown  and  our  inheritance,  to  tri- 
umphant Faith.  But  I  argued  that  communion 
was  a  church  ordinance,  and  involved  church  fellow- 
ship, which  we  could  not  extend  to  those  who  were 
in  error  both  as  to  the  subjects  and  mode  of  baptism. 
This  reasoning  I  believed  to  be  sound,  and  that  I 
ought  to  follow  it,  but  it  acted  like  a  shower-bath 
on  my  heart.  We  all  seemed  to  be  sure,  that,  as  far 
as  the  Scriptures  were  concerned,  the  case  was  set- 
tled, need  I  say,  in  our  favor  ;  and  I  remember  that 
although  we  professed  to  recognize  no  other  author- 
ity, I  yet  was  taught  to  make  much  of  the  fact  that 
nearly  all  denominations  regarded  w^ater  baptism  as 
essential  to  communion.  I  forgot  just  then,  I  sup- 
pose, how  we  stood  in  Christendom  as  to  numbers 
on  pedobaptism  and  sprinkling.  When  we  are  few, 
it  is  convenient  to  say  that  Truth  is  generally  in  the 
minority,  but  the  quotation  does  not  occur  to  us 
when  it  is  our  side  that  has  the  majority.  In  regard 
to  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  I  would  accept 
no  inferences,  no  probabilities,  no  analogies,  from  the 
Scriptures  or  elsewhere — nothing  less  than  a  plain, 
positive,  thus  saith  the  Lord  ;  but  I  dealt  largely  in 
inferential  and  hypothetical  reasoning — much  more 
than  I  was  aware  of  then — when  communion  was  the 


22       CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

question.  Consistency  is  a  jewel  which  we  are  apt 
to  lose  when  we  are  intent  on  establishing  our  case. 
I  did  not  know  what  to  do  with  Hall,  Spurgeon, 
Noel,  and  other  lights  among  the  open  communion- 
is  ts.  They  were  Baptists  when  I  wanted  to  boast  of 
the  denomination,  but  outside  of  it,  or  a  mere  milk- 
and-water  sort,  when  their  j^ractice  was  pitted 
against  mine.  As  for  John  Bunyan,  I  thought  he 
was  the  greatest  Baptist  of  them  all  till  I  found  on 
an  old  book-stand  in  Nausau-street,  what  had  been 
dropped  from  "  The  Bunyan  Library  "  in  the  hands 
of  the  American  Baptist  Publication  Society — 
"Differences  of  Judgment  on  Water  Baptism 
NO  Bar  TO  Communion  ;"  and  as  I  had  always  seen 
Roger  Williams  put  into  our  show-window  when  we 
wanted  the  world  to  see  what  a  fine  stock  w^e  had 
inside,  I  had  taken  it  for  granted  that  he  was  a 
"  dyed  in  the  wool,  an  out-and-out  Baptist."  I  was 
so  much  of  this  sort  myself,  despite  the  misgivings 
which  I  have  mentioned,  such  a  terrible  Baptist 
as  Dr.  Malcom  said  of  himself  at  our  last  convention, 
that  when  I  heard  in  London  that  many  of  our  min- 
isters from  America  communed  in  Pedobaptist 
churches  while  travelling,  and  gave  out  that  they  took 
a  different  course  at  home  because  their  peo2)le  were 
not   ready   for   the   more   liberal  practice,  I  could 


AN   EXPERIENCE.  23 

scarcely  credit  it,  and  avowed  that  I  could  not  con- 
sistently commune  even  with,  open  communionists  ; 
for  if  I  would  indorse  pedobaptism  and  sprinkling 
by  communing  with  Presbyterians,  I  would  indorse 
the  indorsement  which  they  received  from  the  open 
communionists,  if  I  communed  with  them  ;  or,  at 
least,  and  this  was  surely  enough,  I  would  indorse 
them  in  indorsing  the  others  !  Fettered,  as  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  to  me  with  these  implications 
and  embarrassments,  I  had  to  look  upon  it,  in  com- 
mon with  American  Baptists,  as  something  belong- 
ing to  each  Baptist  church  in  its  individual  capacity, 
but  even  in  these  narrow  limits,  as  travellers  would 
come  to  China,  there  was  difficulty  in  making  a  con- 
sistent application  of  our  doctrine  of  indorsement. 
For  example  :  If  I  saw  a  man  at  the  communion- 
table, in  whom  I  had  no  confidence  (alas  that  Judas 
is  still  among  the  disciples,  and  Simon  still  thinks 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  can  be  bought  with  money  !), 
I  was  not  to  hesitate  to  commune  for  fear  of  indors- 
ing him.  Why  not  ?  Because  my  communion  was 
with  Christ,  and  I  was  doing  this  in  remembrance 
of  Him,  showing  forth  His  death,  "until  He  come." 
But  if,  as  a  deacon,  I  were  distributing  the  elements, 
I  must  not  hand  them  to  Mr.  Beecher,  or  even,  ac- 
cording to  the  conscience  of  many  of  my  brethren,  to 


24        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

Mr.  Spurgeon,  if  either  of  them  happened  to  be  wor- 
shipping with  us  ;  because,  in  the  one  case,  we 
would  be  indorsing  pedobaptism,  and  (occasional) 
sprinkling,  and,  in  the  other,  open  communion, 
or  what  it  indorses.  Some  of  my  Baptist  friends 
held  that  they  could  commune  with  any  Christian 
who  had  been  immersed,  but  judging  them  by  the 
then  usual  form  of  invitation,  they  were  not  ortho- 
dox, and  if  they  had  acted  as  they  thought,  the 
Church  might  have  judged  that  they  came  within 
the  scope  of  that  apostolic  injunction,  which  had 
special  reference  to  "  busybodies,"  who  lived  on  the 
churches,  and  ate  without  working  ;  namely,  "  With- 
draw yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walketh 
disorderly.  "^1  A  minister,  who  had  j)reached  for  Mr. 
Spurgeon,  and  knew  him  well,  told  me  that  he  re- 
fused to  commune  in  his  church,  and  would  not  in- 
vite him  to  communion  if  an  opportunity  offered. 
To  do  this  he  would  simply  need  to  give  the  invita- 
tion which  I  have  quoted. 

How  the  expression  of  a  fact  changes  with  the 
student !  He  sometimes  fancies  that  he  is  looking 
at  something  altogether  different.  But  the  differ- 
ence is  in  himself  A  Christian  among  Christians, 
who  kept  his  scat  with  the  intention  of  communing, 

» *  2  Thess.  iii.,  6. 


AN   EXPERIENCE.  25 

was  asked  if  lie  belonged  to  that  cliurcli,  or  any 
other  of  the  same  order.  Eeplying  in  the  negative, 
he  was  informed  that  the  members  did  not  wish  him 
to  partake.  "  Oh/'  said  this  disciple,  rising  to  go,  ^'  I 
beg  your  pardon,  I  thought  it  was  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, but  I  see  it  is  a  private  entertainment ^  It 
seems  strange  that  I  could  ever  regard  this  as  a  jest, 
or  doubt  that  the  man  might  have  honestly  inter- 
preted the  Scriptures  on  this  subject,  and  spoken  out 
of  an  earnest  heart,  sharply  touched  in  the  tender- 
est  spot.  But,  drinking  in  the  s^Dirit  of  by-gone 
battles  (a  sort  of  intemperance  which  is  too  preva- 
lent in  the  churches),  I  had  persuaded  myself  that 
Pedobaptists  were  not  so  anxious  to  commune  with 
us,  and  did  not  feel  so  troubled  at  their  exclusion, 
as  they  represented.  I  held  that  they  would  not 
invite  us  to  their  table  if  we  did  not  exclude  them 
from  ours,  and,  indeed,  that  if  we  had  not  excluded 
them,  they  would  have  excluded  us.  It  was  just  a 
game  of  bluff,  at  which  we  had  been  successful.  This 
feeling,  more  of  which  may  exist  among  us  than  we 
imagine,  is  simply  the  fomenting  of  the  bottled  theo- 
logical "wrath  with  which  the  contending  sects  have 
filled  their  cellars  for  us,  their  successors.  But  this 
is  part  of  our  inheritance,  which  we  should  reject, 
for  the  Present  has  sufficient  sources  of  alienation  to 


26        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 


make  it  criminal  to  keep  its  channels  open  from  the 
Past. 

It  was  a  satisfaction  to  know  that,  in  communing, 
I  did  not  indorse  individual  character ;  for,  to  say 
nothing  about  anybody  else,  I  was  not  compelled  to 
indorse  myself,  except  as  a  sinner  repenting  of  his  sins, 
loving  his  Saviour,  and  being  a  member  of  a  close  com- 
munion Baptist  church,  "  in  good  and  regular  stand- 
ing," namely,  not  under  church  discipline.  That 
this  was  a  happy  deliverance,  will  be  granted  readily 
by  every  one  who  has  Christ  for  his  ideal,  and  any- 
thing like  an  adequate  sense  of  his  own  short- 
coming. 

But  what  shall  I  say  of  the  moral  effect  of  all  thi^ 
hair-splitting  of  the  letter,  which,  being  so  intricate, 
and  so  differently  viewed  by  my  Baptist  brethren  in 
some  of  its  minutest  details,  occupied  so  many  of  my 
thoughts,  and  so  much  of  my  soul  ?  Sometimes, 
when,  on  looking  inward  and  outward,  the  solemn 
import  of  life  and  the  ministry  weighed  more  heavily 
upon  me,  these  words  of  the  Lord  came  to  me  with 
some  sort  of  relevancy  :  ^^Wo  unto  you  scribes  and 
pharisees,  hypocrites,  for  ye  pay  tithe  of  mint  and 
anise  and  cummin,  and  have  omitted  the  weightier 
matters  of  the  law,  judgment,  mercy,  and  faith."^^  j 

»^Matt.  xxiii.,  23. 


AN   EXPERIENCE.  27 

fancied  that  my  mind  could  hold  just  so  much,  and 
that  if  anything,  by  frequent  thought  and  discus- 
sion, took  more  room  than  it  ought,  two  evils  fol- 
lowed,—first,  the  subject  had  more  space  than  it 
deserved,  and  second,  there  was  less  room  for  the  far 
greater  valuables.  So,  as  the  balance  still  appeared 
to  be  in  favor  of  close  communion,  I  resolved,  while 
finally  accepting  it,  to  give  it  few  of  my  thoughts 
and  words,  and  to  have  more  to  do  with  man  as  the 
sinner,  God  as  the  Father,  and  Christ  as  the  Saviour. 
But  the  whole  subject  was  brought  up  again  on  a 
memorable  Sunday,  at  Baptist  Noel's  church,  in 
London.  Knowing  something  of  his  history,  and  of 
what  sacrifice  he  had  made  of  preferment  in  the 
National  Church,  and  position  in  society,  counting 
it  as  nothing,  I  was  sure,  that  he  might  follow  con- 
science and  Christ,  I  listened  with  unusual  pre- 
possession to  a  sermon,  so  simple,  so  sweet,  so  hum- 
ble and  yet  so  grand,  because  so  essentially  Christian 
and  Godly,  that  of  itself  it  would  have  held  me  fast, 
and  lifted  me  upward.  I  need  waste  no  words  in 
trying  to  express  the  unutterable  emotions  of  a 
stranger  in  a  strange  land,  who  meets  the  Master 
among  unknown  disciples,  in  an  unfamiHar  place, 
which,  by  the  divine  enchantment  of  love,  becomes 
''  none  other  than  the  house  of  God,  and  the  very 


28        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

gate  of  heaven."  The  preacher  closed,  and  as  I  bent 
my  head  to  join  in  his  prayer,  I  saw  by  the  furnished 
table  that  the  Lord's  supper  was  to  follow  and  to 
crown  the  service.  But  not  for  me.  The  battle 
between  my  doubting,  longing,  and  unsatisfied  heart, 
and  my  poor,  misinformed  and  prejudiced,  but  still 
faithful  head,  was  renewed,  with  more  wounding  and 
confusion  than  ever  before ;  and  I  left  the  scene — the 
inviting  Sarviour,  His  inviting  minister.  His  inviting 
disciples,  and  the  inviting  emblems  of  Plis  body  and 
blood,  the  very  bread  and  wine  seeming  to  beckon 
me  forward — and,  like  an  alien,  I  passed  out  of  the 
sanctuary,  with  the  dying  request  of  Jesus  sounding 
in  my  ears  :  '^  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  Me." 
I  think  that  the  doctrine  of  Indorsement  received  its 
mortal  wound  in  one  of  the  pews,  and  expired  in  the 
porch,  of  that  plain  old  meeting-house,  which  is 
hallowed  by  a  good  man's  ministry.  I  never  rested 
till  I  sat  by  the  table  on  which,  with  a  mistaken 
fidelity,  I  had  turned  my  back.  How  ridiculously 
scrupulous,  and  presumptuous,  too,  the  doctrine  of 
Indorsement  appears  to  me  now  !  I  know  in  my 
heart  whether  I  indorse  a  thing  or  not,  and  I  have  a 
tongue  to  express  my  opinions  at  proper  times  and 
in  fitting  words  ;  but  then,  in  fear  of  indorsing  what 
I  considered  minor  errors,  by  sitting  at  the  Loid'a 


AN   EXPERIENCE.  29 

table  with  fellow  disciples,  I  used  to  go  about  the 
world,  and  into  churches,  the  veriest  fraction  of  the 
people,  if  any,  .knowing  either  who  I  was,  or  that  I 
was  there,  and  far  less  what  I  thought  about  the 
method  and  subjects  of  water  baptism. 

In  the  light  that  came  to  me  after  the  partition 
wall  of  Indorsement  had  fallen,  I  was  better  able  to 
judge  my  action  in  another  test  to  which  my  views 
of  communion  had  been  put  in  Edinburgh.  I  had 
returned  to  my  native  land,  which  I  left  for  the  new 
world  as  a  wee  laddie,  and  was  invited  to  preach  to 
an  Independent  church  that  had  no  minister.  Not 
knowing  that  they  were  in  the  habit  of  communing 
every  Sunday  (here  is  an  example  for  rigid  literalists 
to  consider),  I  gladly  consented,  and  preached  on 
the  opening  words  of  the  Lord's  prayer.  My  subject 
being  the  Fatherhood  of  Grod,  and  my  residence  in 
a  distant  country,  I  naturally  dwelt  gladly  on  the 
family  that  was  growing  up  in  every  kindred,  and 
tribe,  and  tongue,  into  the  likeness  of  His  Son,  and 
into  the  Heavenly  Home.  But  imagine  my  horror 
when  my  eye  rested  on  the  cloth  that  covered  the 
bread  and  the  wine,  which  my  brothers  and  sisters  in 
the  Lord,  some  of  them  my  parents'  friends  in  auld 
lang  syne,  were  expecting  to  partake  with  me  in  the 
spirit  of  my  sermon.     I  did  not  know  what  to  do, 


30       CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

and  wished  we  were  all  Quakers.  I  did  not  think  it 
would  be  proper  for  me  to  explain  my  position  ;  I 
could  not  conscientiously  serve  at  the  table  ;  and  so 
I  pronounced  the  benediction,  and  went  to  the  ves- 
try. Here  the  deacons  met  me,  and,  thinking  I  was 
unwell,  expressed  their  concern,  and  wanted  to  know 
how  they  could  help  me.  But  I  had  an  affection 
of  the  heart,  which,  as  I  saw  by  their  faces,  they 
could  scarcely  understand,  far  less  cure.  So  when 
they  had  told  me  that  there  was  no  other  minister 
present  to  officiate,  and  had  heard  my  poor  explana- 
tion, and  regrets,  they  let  me  go.  What  a  position 
it  was  for  a  Christian  minister  to  occupy  in  a  land 
where  Baptists  were  few  and  divided  ;  or  indeed, 
wherever  he  might  labor  outside  of  his  own  sect !  I 
could  preach  in  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland, 
wear  a  gown  and  bands,  and  give  out  the  ^'psalms  of 
David  in  metre,"  without  indorsing  the  union  of 
church  and  state,  ritualism,  or  the  literary  character 
of  the  Hebrew  bard  as  he  appears  in  English  dog- 
gerel ;  but  if  I  ate  and  drank  with  these  Presbyter- 
ians at  the  Lord's  table,  I  at  once  became  a  party  to 
their  views  of  baptism  !  Not  long  afterward  I  was 
invited  to  preach  to  an  Independent  church  in  Dun- 
dee, but  this  time  I  took  the  precaution  to  inform 
them  that  they -must  have  somebody  else  in  readi- 


AN   EXPERIENCE.  31 

ness  to  preside  at  tlie  communion — an  announce- 
ment, which,  I  am  afraid,  did  not  better  the  services 
to  the  hearers  who  were  aware  of  it.  Since  the  time 
when  Indorsement,  that  old  enemy  of  my  peace,  was 
slain,  I  have  often  wished  for  an  opportunity  to 
share  the  memorials  of  our  Saviour's  death  with  these 
fellow- Christians  from  whom  my  former  convictions 
kept  me  aloof. 

It  is  easy  to  hold  a  theory  which  is  not  put  to  the 
test  of  practice  at  every  point  of  application.  Hence 
it  is,  I  think,  that  so  many  continue  committed  to 
close  communion.  They  seldom  are  absent  from 
their  own  church  ;  and  if  they  are,  they  are  general- 
ly in  reach  of  one  of  the  same  faith  and  order.  They 
therefore  hold  to  their  exclusiveness  as  Dr.  Brown 
held  to  the'  dogma  that  there  is  no  natural  good, 
till  he  was  saved  by  a  wicked  crew  from  perishing 
of  cold.  The  story  is  charmingly  told  in  "  Spare 
Hours."  The  venerable  preacher  had  a  distant  ap- 
pointment, which,  as  usual,  he  was  bent  on  keeping. 
But  when  the  day  arrived,  the  wind  was  high,  the 
snow  was  falling  fast,  and  his  friends  were  urgent 
that  he  should  postpone  his  visit.  Yet  go  he 
would  ;  and  before  he  was  half  way  he  was  chilled 
and  blinded  by  the  increasing  storm  ;  his  carriage 
wheels  were  clogged ;  and  his  pony,  a  beastie  that  had 


32        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

seen  better  da3^s — "being  very  tired,  and  finding  it 
hard  to  pull  on  snow  balls,  tumbled  over,  and  rolled 
into  the  ditch  with  his  load.  The  snow  was  deep, 
the  mercury  low,  and  but  little  blood  in  the  old 
man's  veins.  There  he  lay  at  the  white  icy  door  of 
death,  when  who  should  come  along  but  these  rough- 
est of  characters — Scotch  carters  with  whiskey.  They 
see  the  wreck  in  the  drift,  draw  out  the  puir  wee 
body,  bring  him  to  with  the  chafing  of  hands  made 
horny  with  toil,  but  which  human  kindness  yet 
makes  tender,  wrap  him  up  in  their  plaids,  and  gie 
him  a  wee  drappie  from  one  of  the  barrels  to  warm 
him  inside.  Kepenting  of  his  hard  thoughts  of  his 
fellows,  and  full  of  gratitude  for  his  deliverance,  the 
old  man  uncovers  his  head,  gives  thanks  to  Heaven, 
and  asks  a  blessing  on  the  cordial  he  is  about  to  take, 
and  on  his  preservers,  the  reckless  neer-do-weels  that 
stand  around,  and  watch  him  with  moistening  eyes. 
Experience  taught  him  wisdom ;  and  at  the  first 
succeeding  convention  of  his  ministerial  brethren  he 
told  them  how  he  had  found  the  better  side  of  bad 
men,  who,  even  at  the  worst,  have  somewhere  upon 
them  a  fingermark  of  God.  If  Dr.  Brown  had  not 
fallen  in  with  such  characters  in  some  such  circum- 
stances, he  would  probably  have  died  with  a  different 
and  a  darker  understanding  of  those  scriptures  which 


AN   EXPERIENCE.  33 

refer  to  human  depravity.  Had  I  settled  early  as  a 
pastor,  and  been  altogether  with  my  own  particular 
flock,  they  might  have  confirmed  me,  and  1  them,  in 
close  communion,  but  the  nature  of  the  thing  would 
not  have  been  fairly  tested.  I  suppose  that  ihis  ac- 
counts for  the  alleged  disorderly  vv^alk  of  some  Amer- 
ican Baptist  ministers  abroad. 

I  was  brought  closer  to  the  embarrassments  of 
close  communion  in  Great  Britain,  but  I  had  felt 
them  at  home  ;  for,  as  chaplain  of  a  regiment  in 
which  most  of  those  who  bore  the  Christian  name 
were  Koman  Catholics  and  Presbyterians,  I  not  only 
was  unable  to  commune  myself,  but  I  also  prevented 
others  from  communing,  to  whom  communion  might 
have  been  a  means  of  grace.  They  knew  that,  as  a 
Baptist,  I  had  conscientious  scruples  against  inter- 
communion, and  never  proposed  what,  of  course,  I 
could  not  suggest.  Yet,  many  a  time  before  and 
after  battle — the  dreadful  conflict  and  mortal  danger 
impending  through  sad  and  loving  thoughts  of 
home  ;  or  the  struggle  over,  and  the  soil  still  moist 
on  the  upturned  faces  of  our  fallen  comrades — we 
might  have  shown  forth  the  dying  of  the  Lord  to- 
gether, and  strengthened  ourselves  with  thoughts  of 
our  immortality  in  Him.  But  the  Jordan  seemed 
to  me  to  flow  by  the  Lord's  appointment  between 


34        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

them,  and  His  table,  at  which  I,  who  had  "  come 
up  out  of  the  water  "  was  sitting,  a  welcome  guest  ; 
and  I  could  not  commune  with  them,  because  in 
crossing  the  stream  they  had  not  gone  under  it.  It 
is  easy,  and  may  be  considered  conclusive,  to  say  : 
"  You  ought  to  have  instructed' them  in  the  way  of 
the  Lord  more  perfectly  ; "  which  means  that  I 
should  have  convinced  them  that  nothing  but  im- 
mersion was  baptism,  and  that  it  was  essential  to 
scriptural  communion  ;  but  surely,  at  such  a  time, 
it  would  have  been  unwise  to  discuss  forms,  especially 
in  view  of  the  difficulty  of  bringing  many  minds  to 
one  opinion.  This  difficulty,  this  serious  inevitable 
fact,  which  met  me  so  often,  and  which  I  once  was 
so  hopeful  of  reversing,  had  no  small  influence  in 
forcing  me,  through  church  teaching,  to  the  Lord 
Himself  for  an  answer  to  two  questions,  which  seem 
to  me  to  be  so  intimately  connected  that  they  are 
essentially  one  :  Am  I  bound  to  commune  with  Bap- 
tists only  ?  Should  none  but  Baptists  commune  ? 
Kinging  through  the  New  Testament,  interpreting 
and  harmonizing  all  its  teachings  on  this  subject, 
and  freeing  the  table  from  many  of  the  burdens 
which  the  churches  have  put  upon  it,  I  heard  my 
reply  from  the  Eternal  Word,  the  Way,  the  Truth, 
the  Life  :  "Do*  Tins  In  Kemembhance  of  Me/' 


THE   lord's   supper — WHO   ARE    WORTHY.       35 


THE  LOED'S    SUPPER 
AS     INSTITUTED     BY     HIMSELF, 

A2fD 

WHO    ARE    THE    WORTHY    COMMUNICANTS. 

AxD  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed  it, 
and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said.  Take,  eat ; 
this  is  my  body.  And  He  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and 
gave  it  to  them,  saying.  Drink  ye  all  it ;  For  this  is  my  blood 
of  the  New  Testament  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.  But  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  not  drink  henceforth 
of  this  fruit  of  the  vine  until  that  day  when  I  drink  it  new 
with  you  in  my  Father's  kingdom. — Matthew  xxvi.  26-29. 

And  as  they  did  eat,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed,  and 
brake  it,  and  gave  to  them,  and  said.  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my 
body.  And  He  took  the  cup,  and  when  He  had  given  thanks. 
He  gave  it  to  them  :  and  they  all  drank  of  it.  And  He  said 
unto  them,  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament  which  is 
shed  for  many.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  drink  no  more 
of  the  fruit  of  the  vine  until  that  day  that  I  drink  it  new  in 
the  kingdom  of  God. — Mark  xiv.  22-25. 

And  He  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  said.  Take  this, 
and  divide  it  among  yourselves  :  For  I  say  unto  you,  I  will 
not  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  the  kingdom  of  God 
shall  come.  And  He  took  bread,  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake 
it,  and  gave  unto  them,  saying.  This  is  my  body  which  is  giv^en 
for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.     Likewise  also  the 


36       CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION? 

cup  after  supper,  saying,  This  cup  is  tlie  New  Testament  in 
my  blood,  which,  is  shed  for  you. — Luke  xxii.  17-20. 

For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  have 
delivered  unto  you,  That  the  Lord  Jesus  the  same  night  in 
which  He  was  betrayed  took  bread  :  And  when  He  had  given 
thanks,  He  brake  it,  and  said.  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body 
which  is  broken  for  you :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me. 
After  the  same  manner  also  He  took  the  cup,  when  he  had 
supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood  : 
this  do,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as 
often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the 
Lord's  death  till  He  come.— 1  Cor.  xi.  23-26. 

John,  the  Evangelist,  says  nothing  to  indicate  that 
Christ  established  an  ordinance  for  His  church  when 
He  ate  the  passover  with  the  twelve,  unless  He 
ought  to  be  understood  literally,  and  as  speaking  to 
all  His  disciples,  when  He  said,  after  washing  the 
Apostles'  feet  :  If  I  then,  your  Lord  and  Master, 
have  washed  your  feet  ;  ye  also  ought  to  w^ash  one 
another's  feet.  For  I  have  given  you  an  example, 
that  ye  should  do  as  I  have  done  to  you."^ 

This  Gospel,  hoAvever,  which  is  silent  on  the 
breaking  of  the  bread,  and  the  drinking  of  the  wine, 
contains  the  only  record  of  words  like  those  by  which 
the  Saviour  made  the  last  supper  His  memorial  till 
time  should  end.     Pitying  the  hungry  multitude 

iJohn  xiii.,  14,  15. 


THE   lord's   supper — WHO   ARE   WORTHY.        37 

that  f«)llowed  Him,  He  gave  thanks,  and  distributed 
'^  five  barley  loaves  and  two  small  fishes/'  among  His 
disciples,  who  fed  the  wondering  thousands  there- 
with, and  afterwards  filled  twelve  baskets  with  the 
fragments.^  Then,  perceiving  that  they  would  take 
Him  by  force  to  make  Him  a  king,  "  He  departed 
again  into  a  mountain  Himself,  alone,"3  From 
this  solitude  He  walked  in  the  love  and  powder  of 
God  to  the  ship  that  His  disciples  were  rowing  in  a 
great  wind,  a  heavy  sea,  and  a  dark  night,  toward 
Capernaum.'*  Here  the  crowd  that  had  sought  Him 
on  the  other  side,  asked  Him  in  surprise,  "  Eabbi, 
when  comest  Thou  hither  ?  and  He  replied,  "  Ye 
seek  me,  not  because  ye  saw  the  miracles,  but 
because  ye  did  eat  of  the  loaves,  and  were  filled. 
Labor  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but  for  that 
meat  which  endureth  unto  everlasting  life,  which  the 
Son  of  Man  shall  give  unto  you."^  It  has  been  sug- 
gested that  the  walking  on  the  sea  occurred  in  con- 
nection with  Christ's  mysterious  sayings  about  His 
body,  in  order  that  he  might  be  understood  not  in 
the  material  sense,  but  in  the  spiritual.  Then  said 
the  Jews  to  Him  :  ^'  Our  fathers  did  eat  manna  in 
the  desert,  as  it  is  written,  ^  He  gave  them  bread 
from  heaven  to  eat  ;'  "  and  Jesus  answered,  "  Moses 

2  John  vi.,  9-13;   Sverse  15  ;  ^verses  16-19  ;  Myerses  26,  27. 


38        CLOSE  COMMUNIOIT,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

gave  you  not  that  bread  from  heaven  ;  but  my 
Father  giveth  you  the  true  bread  from  heaven  ;  for 
the  bread  of  God  is  He  which  cometh  down  from 
heaven,  and  giveth  life  unto  the  world.^  ••'■  '*'  Yerily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  helievetli  on  me  hath 
everlasting  life.  I  am  that  bread  of  life.  Your 
fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the  wilderness,  and  are  dead. 
This  is  the  bread  which  cometh  down  from  heaven, 
that  a  man  may  eat  thereof  and  not  die.  I  am  the 
living  bread  ivhich  came  doivn/rom  heaven  :  if  any 
man  eat  of  'this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever  :  and 
the  bread  that  I  ivill  give  is  my  flesh,  ivhich  I  luill 
give  for  the  life  of  the  ivorld."'^ 

"  The  Jews  therefore  strove  among  themselves 
(some  of  them,  perhajDS,  suspecting  a  spiritual  mean- 
ing) saying.  How  can  this  man  give  us  His  flesh  to 
eat  ?"& 

Then  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you.  Except  ye  cat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
and  drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.  Who- 
so eateth  my  flesh,  anddrinheth  my  blood,  hath  eter- 
nal life,  and  I  loill  raise  him  u^o  at  the  last  day.""^ 

It  seems  impossible  to  doubt  that  there  is  a  vital 
spiritual  reality  underlying  these  words — nothing 
less,  indeed,  than  the  very  mystery  of  j)artaking  of 

«John  vi.,  31-33  ;*  'verses  47-51 :   ^verse  52;   ^verses  53,  51. 


THE   LOKD'S   supper — WHO    ARE   WORTHY.       39 

the  divine  nature,  and  of  union  witli  God  tlirough 
Christ  thus  formed  v»d thin  us — and  that  this  is  iden- 
tical with  that  which  the  communion  symbolizes, 
and  is.  For  the  Saviour  vvdio  said  of  .Himself  :  ''  I 
am  that  bread  of  life,"  said  afterwards  of  the  bread 
which  he  blessed  and  brake  at  the  last  supper, 
^'  Take,  eat  ;  this  is  my  body."  He  said  also  of 
Himself,  ^'  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my 
blood,  hath  eternal  life  ;  "  and  once  subsequently  of 
ihe  cup,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it,  for  this  is  my  blood  of 
the  New  Testament  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the 
remission  of  sins." 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  truth  which  He  intended 
to  convey,  is,  that  we  should  feed  upon  Him,  and  live 
by  Him,  as  a  personal  Saviour,  as  the  Son  of  Man, 
too,  as  well  as  the  Eternal  Word,  His  humanity 
being  represented  by  His  flesh  and  His  blood  ;  or, 
in  other  words,  that  we,  whom  He  makes  kings 
and  priests  unto  God,^^  should  subsist  upon  Him 
as  our  voluntary  atoning  sacrifice,  as  our  real  Pass- 
over/^ and  our  livino^  Eedeemer. 

"  For  warm,  swcot,  tender,  even  yet 
A  present  help  is  He, 
And  Faith  has  still  its  Olivet, 
And  Love  its  Galilee. 

^  0  Rev.  i.,  5,  6.  Ill  Cor.  v.,  7  ;  and  Ex.  xxix.,  32,  33  ;  Lev.  vi., 
16-18,  29  :  vii,,  6-10  f^i  r  the  eating  of  the  sacrifices  by  the  priests. 


40       CLOSE  COMMUNIONj  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

"  The  liealing  of  His  seamless  dress 
Is  by  our  beds  of  pain  ; 
We  toucli  Him  in  Life's  throng  and  press, 
And  we  are  whole  again." 

The  time  came  when  some  of  the  Jews,  who  had 
stood  aghast  at  the  idea  of  eating  His  flesh,  and 
(h'inking  His  blood,  received  a  better  understanding 
of  these  mysterious  and  seemingly  impious  words,  12 
which  made  many  even  of  His  disciples  exclaim, 
^'  This  is  a  hard  saying,  who  can  hear  it  ?  "^^  For, 
in  full  view  of  His  death  and  resurrection,  Peter  ut- 
tered again  that  memorable  confession  of  His  Mas- 
ter, but  this  time  to  a  different  audience,  and  with 
a  far  richer  meaning  :  "  Therefore  let  all  the  house 
of  Israel  know  assuredly,  that  God  hath  made  that 
same  Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and 
Christ/'^^  Then,  when  they  looked  on  Him  whom 
they  had  pierced,  whose  flesh,  as  it  were,  they  had 
eaten,  and  whose  blood  they  had  drunk,  in  their 
fury,  they  were  pricked  in  their  hearts,  and  con- 
strained to  inquire,  "  Men  and  brethren,  what  shall 
we  do  ?"^^  Surely,  when  Peter  pointed  to  Jesus  as 
their  Pedeemer,  and  the  darkness  of  their  ignorance 
and  unbelief  began  to  melt  in  the  brightness  of  His 
rising,  and   He  Himself   to   beam   upon  them  as 

i  2  Lev.  Yii.,  2G,  27. .   » 3  John  vi.,  GO.     1  ^  ^cts  ii.,  36  j    ^  ^  verse  37. 


•WHO  ARE   WORTHY.        41 

David's  Son  and  Lord,  as  their  Brother,  their  Prince, 
and  their  Saviour  ;  surely,  when  they  thought  of 
Him  who  had  taught  in  their  streets,  who  had  gone 
about  doing  good,  who  had  spoken  as  never  man 
spoke  before,  who  had  wept  over  their  Jerusalem, 
and  Avho,  by  their  wicked  hands,  had  died  outside 
the  gate  for  their  redemption,  surely  with  a  hungry 
eager  love  they  ate  His  flesh,  and  drank  His  blood 
again, — they  took  Him  to  their  hearts  as  one  with 
them,  and  worshipped  Him  as  God  manifest  in  the 
Flesh,  the  Lord  of  Life,  and  the  King  of  Glory. 
This  appropriation  of  the  Saviour  to  the  soul  is,  as 
we  shall  see,  the  preparation  for  the  Lord's  supper, 
as  it  is  for  water  baptism. 

It  should  never  escape  us  that  what  we  secure  by 
eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood  of  the  Son 
of  Man,  we  obtain  hy  believing  on  Him.  "  He  that 
believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life — ^goi}v  aiooyiovT 
''Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood 
hath  eternal  life — <?&3;/r  aioonov." 

The  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  are  symbolized 
by  the  bread  and  the  wine  of  communion  ;  and 
our  feeding  on  Him,  and  our  union  with  each  other, 
by  our  outward  use  of  the  same  symbols.  This  is  the 
symbolical  significance  of  the  Lord's  supper.  But 
it  is  more  than  a  symbol,  for,  in  the  communion, 


42        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 


the  soul  acts,  and  is  acted  upon,  as  well  as  the  body. 
The  Christian's  celebration  of  the  ordinance  involves 
the  spiritual  process  described  by  Christ  to  the  Jews. 

We  should  feed  richly  on  Jesus  always  ;  and  we 
may  ;  for  He  says  to  us  as  He  said  to  the  twelve, 
^'  Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you  ;  "^^  but  knowing  that 
we  are  prone  to  starve  ourselves,  He  has  wisely  and 
graciously  ordained  a  reminder  of  Himself,  and  of 
our  dependence  on  Him.  "■  This  is  my  body  which 
is  given  for  you  ;  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me." 

Not  only  does  the  ordinance  show  the  Lord's 
death,  but  it  also  suggests  and  fortells  His  coming, 
and  His  Father's  kingdom,  in  which,  and  world 
v/ithout  end,  His  flesh  will  still  be  meat  indeed,  and 
His  blood  drink  indeed,  in  the  same  spiritual  sense, 
to  all  His  disciples. 

The  Lord's  Supper  has  still  another  feature  which 
by  no  means  should  be  overlooked.  The  union  of 
believers  in  Christ  seems  to  lead  naturally  in  the 
New  Testament  to  their  union  with  each  other. 
When  He  said,  "  I  am  the  vine  ;  ye  are  the  branch - 
es,"^^  He  declared  Himself  to  be  the  living,  the  life- 
giving,  and  the  eternal  Uniter  of  His  people  to  Him- 
self, and  to  one  another.  In  His  prayer  for  His 
disciples — not  only  for  those  who  followed  Him  then, 

i^  Jolin  XV.,  4;    ^'  verse  5. 


THE   lord's   STJiPER — WHO    ARE   WORTHY.       43 

"but  also  for  tliem  that  sliould  believe  on  Him 
tlirougli  their  word — how  He  binds  them  to  Him- 
self, to  each  other,  and  to  God.  "  That  they  all 
may  be  one  ;  as  Thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in 
Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us,  that  the 
■world  may  believe  that  Thou  hast  sent  me."^^  In 
the  inspired  mind  of  the  i^postle  Paul,  thoughts  of 
the  Lord's  supper  awakened  thoughts  of  the  union 
of  saints.  The  two  were  just  as  closely  connected, 
in  his  estimation,  as  cause  and  effect ;  for,  after 
teaching  that  the  cup  of  blessing,  which  we  bless,  is 
the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the 
bread,  which  we  break,  the  communion  of  the  body 
of  Christ,  he  adds  immediately,  ^^  For  lue  heing 
many  are  one.  bread,  and  one  body,  for  loe  are  all 
partakers  of  that  one  hread^^^  No  turning  or 
twisting  can  alter  or  evade  the  truth  which  Paul  so 
emphatically  states,  that  just  because  the  commun- 
ion is  feeding  upon  Christ,  it  expresses,  and  it  is, 
the  union  of  believers  to  each  other  in  Him.  But 
the  Apostle  gives  it  still  a  deeper  meaning,  for  his 
words  involve  the  very  idea  of  identity.  It  is  as  if 
he  had  said.  Partaking  of  that  one  bread,  which  is 
the  body  of  Christ,  is  feeding  upon  Him  ;  and  we 
who  eat  the  bread  which  we  break,  are  thereby  one 

1 8  John  xvii.,  20,  21 ;    '  ^  1  Cor.  x.,  16,  17. 


44       CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 


bread,  and  we  who  feed  upon  the  body,  which  was 
broken  for  us,  are  thereby  one  body. 

Keturning  now  to  that  prayer  which  the  Saviour 
offered  between  the  Passover  and  the  Crucifixion, 
we  hear  Him  saying,  "  Neither  pray  I  for  tliese 
alone  (who  communed  with  Him),  hut  for  them  also 
which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word  ;  That 
they  all  may  he  one  ;  as  Thou,  Father,  art  in  me 
and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  he  one  in  us''' 
Putting  these  scriptures  together,  I  am  as  sure  that 
the  Lord's  supper  belongs  to  all  those  whom  He 
thus  describes,  and  thus  bears  on  His  heart  to  His 
Father,  as  I  am  that  He  loved  me  and  gave  Him- 
self for  me.  Eighteen  centuries  are  full  of  proofs  that 
we  cannot  agree  in  our  views  of  church  organization 
and  government,  of  days^  of  ordinances,  and  doctrines, 
but  still,  and  none  the  less,  the  host  of  believers 
have  always  been,  are  now,  and  will  be  forever  one, — ■ 
"  the  body  of  Christ  and  members  in  particular  ;"-*^ 
"  in  whom,"  to  change  the  figure,  and  reiterate  the 
precious  truth,  "all  the  building  fitly  framed  to- 
gether groweth  unto  a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord/'^i 
The  scriptures  thus  show  that  the  Lord's  supper  is 
not  only  a  sign,  but  also  a  means,  of  this  onentss  of 

2  0  I  Cor.  xii.,  27.     =  i  Epli.  ii.,  18-21. 


THE    LOKD'S    supper — WHO    ARE   WORTHY.       45 

believers,  which  arises  from  their  eating  the  same 
spiritual  food  ;  namely^  Christ,  their  Life. 

In  explaining  the  communion  to  the  Corinthians, 
who  were  carnal  and  schismatical,  who  abused  the 
sacred  memorials  for  gluttony  and  drunkenness,  Paul 
delivered  this  solemn  exhortation,  ''  Let  a  man 
examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread 
and  drink  of  that  cup.  For  he  that  eateth  and 
drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damna- 
tion* to  himself,  not  discerning  the  Lord's 
BoDY.''^^  "  For  this  cause^'^  he  continues,  "  many 
are  weak  and  sickly  among  you,  and  many  sleep.'' 
The  preparation,  then,  for  the  ordinance,  is  inward, 
not  outward.  Our  fitness  is  not  in  water  baptism, 
and  our  unfitness  is  neither  in  our  sprinkling,  nor  in 
our  entire  freedom  from  baptismal  water.  But,  if 
we  recognize  the  Lord  in  the  bread  and  the  wine,  if 
we  discern  His  body,  if  we  feel  that  even  we  were 
meant  when  He  said,  ^'  This  is  my  body,  which  is 
broken  for  you,"  if  it  is  true  of  us  that  "  by  one 
spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,"-^  Christ 
gives  us  the  right,  and  will  give  us  the  blessing,  of 
eating  and  drinking  at  His  table. 

Under  the  heading  of  "  The  Lord's  Supper — 
The  pTO])er   method  of  its   observance,'" — Lange's 

♦Appendix  (1).     22  1  q^^^  xi.,  29,  30 ;  23  xH.,  13. 


46        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMxMUNION  ? 

Commentary,  in  joerfect  unison  with  the  words  of 
Ilim  who  instituted  the  ordinance,  and  with  Paul's 
pxjDosition  of  its  nature,  teaches  as  follows  :  ''  The 
words  ^  given  for  you  ' — ^  shed  f jr  the  remission  of 
sins ' — are  associated  with  the  act  of  eating  and 
drinking  the  elements  as  expressing  the  chief  thing 
in  this  sacrament  ;  and  he  who  truly  believes  in 
these  ivoi  ds  is  a  ricjht-ioorthy  and  well- qualified 
communicant.  But  he  who  does  not  accept  their 
truth,  or  doubts  them,  is  unworthy  and  disqualified  ; 
for  all  that  the  tvords  'for  you '  require  is  a  sincevQ 
believing  heart."" 

"  Still  further,"  continues  this  excellent  chapter, 
laying  hold  of  the  apostolical  idea  of  the  union  and 
identity  of  believers  with  each  other  by  feeding  on 
Christ  in  the  communion, — "  in  my  associates  I  be- 
hold One  who  is  in  them,  even  as  He  is  in  me,  who 
imparts  Himself  to  them  as  He  does  to  me,  who  loves 
them  as  He  does  me,  and  who  is  beloved  by  them  as 
He  is  beloved  by  me.  Thus  all  sense  of  estranged- 
ness  is  removed,  and  a  feeling  of  true  brotherhood  is 
awakened,  and  a  communion  established  wherein  we 
freely  share  with  each  other  what  we  have  received 
from  Christ/' 

But  see  what  we  American  Baptists  have  made 
the  Lord's  supper,  in  connecting  it  as  we  do  with 


THE    lord's    supper — WHO    ARE   WORTHY.       47 

our  understanding  of  water  baptism,  and  as  neither 
Christ  nor  His  Apostles  ever  connected  it — a  Bap- 
tist supper,  at  which,  if  this  union,  this  identity,  of 
believers  in  Christ,  is  realized  and  fostered,  it  logi- 
cally extends  to  Baptist  believers  only  ;  for  in  this 
country  the  Baptist  invitation  to  Christ's  table,  is  tp 
"  members  of  sister  churches  of  the  same  faith  and 
order.''  If  the  Baptist  churches  in  America  accept 
Paul's  doctrine  of  the  communion,  that  "  we,  being 
many,  are  one  bread,  and  one  body,  for  we  are  all 
partakers  of  that  one  bread,"  then,  according  to  the 
Baptist  invitation,  and  the  Baptist  conscience  of  who 
should  partake,  it  is  a  Baptist  bread  that  is  par- 
taken, and  a  Baptist  body  that  results.  This,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  either  schism,  or,  at  least,  depriving 
the  commnnion  of  that  very  feature  which  grows 
naturally  out  of  feeding  on  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ — I  mean  the  spiritual  union,  and  sameness  in 
kind,  of  all  those  to  whom  His  Flesh  is  meat  indeed, 
and  His  Blood  drink  indeed.  That  Christ  intended 
the  communion  to  symbolize  and  to  have  this  effect, 
and  that  Paul  portrayed  this  feature  in  the  most 
positive  and  graphic  style,  it  seems  impossible  to 
deny.  True  it  is  that  the  creeds  of  Christendom 
make  water  baptism  in  one  form  or  another  essential 
to  communion  ;  but  surely  this  is  not  a  plea  for  our 


48        CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

mouths  wlio  boast  so  often  that  we  are  not  governed 
by  human  authority,  but  by  divine.  And  then,  as 
these  other  churches  have  the  three  gates  of  sprink- 
ling, pouring  and  clipping,  they  are  at  liberty  to  wel- 
come each  other,  and  would  gladly  sit  with  us,  at  the 
Lord's  suj^per  ;  while  we  having  but  the  one  gate  of 
immersion,  with  indorsement  for  the  key,  are  com- 
pelled to  have  a  table  for  ourselves.  We  may  be 
bold  enough  to  say  it  is  the  Lord's,  and  the  only  one 
He  has  ;  but  our  brethren,  and  may  be  the  Master 
Himself  think  differently. 

There  is  not  a  word  about  water  baptism  in  the 
Scriptures  to  indicate  that  it  is  an  essential  condi- 
tion of  participating  in  the  Lord's  supper.  "  This  is 
my  body,"  ''  eat  ;"  ''  this  is  my  blood,"  ''■  drink  ;" 
^'  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me," — the  One  and 
only  Saviour  of  "  them  that  shall  believe  on  me 
through  their  word."  "  He  that  believeth  on  me 
(mark  the  absence  of  water  baptism  in  this  connec- 
tion) hath  everlasting  life.  I  am  that  bread  of  life, 
o  ■:>  -;:j  ^g  i\^Q  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live 
by  the  Father,  so  he  that  eateth  me,  even  he  shall 
live  by  me."  ^*  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drink- 
eth  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life."  ''  The  cup  of  bless- 
ing v/hich  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the 
blood  of  Clirist,  and  the  bread  which  we  break,  is  it 


-WHO   ARE  WORTHY.       49 

not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  "  This 
too  in  a  double  sense,  both  relating  to  Christ  Him- 
self, on  whom  believers  feed,  and  to  them  who  them- 
selves are  His  body;  "for  (the  on  holding  on  to 
what  precedes)  we  being  many  are  One  Bread  and 
One  Body."  Why  ?  and  How  .?  "  Because  we 
are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread." 

Showing  how  American  Baptists  are  compelled  to 
ignore,  or  deny,  this  scriptural  and  natural  meaning 
and  effect  of  the  proper  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  a  venerable  minister  was  lamenting  to  me 
recently  that  it  had  ever  been  called  The  Communion, 
because,  said  he,  it  makes  many  think  that  we  com- 
mune with  each  other,  as  well  as  with  Christ  !  That 
this  narrowing  of  its  significance,  this  destruction  of 
the  harmony  and  fullness  of  its  teaching,  is  com- 
mon among  us,  I  am  an  ear  witness,  and  more,  for 
the  ordinance  was  once  thus  dwarfed  and  distorted 
to  me.  I  think,  too,  that  I  see  the  explanation.  If, 
say  we,  the  Lord's  supper  were  intended  at  once  to 
illustrate  and  foster  the  union  and  identity  of  all  be- 
lievers with  each  other,  in  feeding  on  Him,  our  invi- 
tation is  too  exclusive.  If  this  were  Christ's  design, 
who  saw  the  end  from  the  beginning.  He  would  not 
have  made  participation  in  the  ordinance  absolutely 
dependent  on  previous  water  baptism,  according  to  our 


50        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

understanding  of  it.  But  as  he  has,  say  we  (and  here 
is  the  2)etitio  j^'i^incijni),  our  invitation  is  proper,  and 
the  Lord's  supper  neither  shows  that  all  believers 
are  ''  one  bread  and  one  body/'  nor  helps  to  make 
them  so. 

Taking  the  other  view,  that  it  does  thus  show 
and  help,  we  are  led  to  a  position  in  which  few  are 
content  to  stand  ;  namely,  that  believers,  who  have 
been  baptized  in  water  as  water  baptism  is  under- 
stood by  Baptists,  and  that  those  believers  only,  are 
"  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  particular."  I 
say  few  accept  this  conclusion,  and  I  doubt  that  any 
can,  in  view  of  Paul's  declaration  that  "  by  One 
Spirit  are  all  we  baptized  into  one  body."'-' 

"It  is  clear  from  this  passage,"  says  Neander, 
"  that  Paul  considers  the  unity  of  the  church  not  as 
something  formed  from  without,  but  as  fashioned 
from  within." 

The  Lord's  supper,  then,  belongs  to  that  body  of 
which  He  is  the  Life.     And  that  body  is  composed 

*  In  examining  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  supper,  the  11th  and 
12lh  chapters  of  1  Cor.  should  be  studied  together,  for,  by  applying 
what  he  says  of  the  physical  body  to  the  Corinthians  as  "  the  body 
of  Christ,"  in  the  latter,  Paul  joins  it  to  his  exposition  of  the  com- 
munioQ  in  the  former. 


THE   lord's   supper — ^WHO   ARE   WORTHY.       51 

of  all  believers  on  Him,  for  "  he  that  helieveth  on 
the  Son  hath  everlasting  li/e."^^ 

This  is  the  argument  from  Scripture  which  has 
satisfied  me,  by  making  me  feel  that  I  have  reached 
the  heart  of  the  matter,  and  that  all  other  questions 
and  difficulties  are  side  issues  which  can,  and  must, 
be  solved.  For  if  we  are  persuaded  that  we  appre- 
hend the  spirit,  or,  rather,  are  apprehended  by  it, 
we  may  expect  to  find  a  straight  path  through  all 
seeming  complications  of  the  letter.  Yea,  if  we  have 
the  spirit  we  have  the  solution  of  the  letter,  for,  when 
brought  into  contact,  they  do  not  disagree.  It  is 
when  we  separate  them,  and  make  more  of  the  letter 
than  the  spirit,  that  we  are  caught  in  the  former  and 
kept  from  the  latter.  It  is  better,  then,  to  travel 
to  the  letter  by  the  spirit,  than  to  the  spirit  by  the 
letter.  But  most  take  the  longer  and  harder  road, 
and  become,  like  the  Jewish  scribes'-'  and  Judaizins; 
teachers,  servants,  not  of  the  spirit,  but  of  the  letter ; 
"  for  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life."^^ 

2  4  Jobn  iii.,  36;  also  verses  14-18;  v.,  24;  vi.,  29,  35,  40,  47  j 
vii.,  38;  xi.,  25,  26;  xiv.,  12.     *  Appendix  (2).     252  Cor.  iii.,  6. 


52       CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  THE  FIEST  COMMUNICANTS. 

Although  the  Lord  kept  His  last  Passover,  at 
which  He  instituted  the  communion,  with  none  but  the 
twelve  Apostles,^  yet  He  had  far  more  disciples  than 
these  ;  for  the  Scriptures  tell  us  that  He  appointed 
other  seventy  also,  who  returned  again  with  joy,  say- 
ing that  even  the  devils  were  subject  to  them  through 
His  name  ;^  that  the  Pharisees  heard  that  He  made 
and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John  f  that  cer- 
tain women,  Mary,  Susanna,  Joanna,  and  many 
others,  who  ministered  to  Him  of  their  substance, 
were  with  Him,  and  the  twelve,  in  His  first  tour  of 
Galilee  ;^  that  there  were  men  who  had  companied 
with  the  Apostles  all  the  time  that  He  went  out  and 
in  among  them  ;^  and  that  He  was  seen  of  over  five 
hundred  brethren  at  once  before  His  ascension.^  It  is 
probable  that  some  of  these  followers  had  received 
baptism  from  those  disciples  who  baptized,  but  none 
of  them,  although  it  is  likely  that  they  believed  on 
Jesus  as  the  Christ  who  had  come,  and  whom  they 

1  Matt,  xxvi.,  20;  Mark  xiv.,  17  ;  Luke  xxli.,  14.  2  Luke  x., 
1,  17.  3  Jolm  iv.,  1,  2.  4  Luke  viii.,  1-3.  «  Acts  i.,  21,  22.  «  1 
Cor.  X7.   6. 


BAPTISM   OF   THE   FIRST    COMMUNICANTS.         53 

knew  in  person  at  the  time  of  their  baptism,  partook, 
or  were  present,  at  His  supper. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  record  of  the  bap- 
tism of  the  first  communicants. 

Andrew,  who  was  a  disciple  of  the  Baptist,  heard 
him  say  as  Jesus  walked  by,  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of 
God,"  and,  after  going  home  with  Him,  brought 
Peter  to  see  Him,  and  receive  a  new  name.  From 
the  modest  way  that  John  the  Evangelist  has  of 
speaking  of  himself,  it  is  generally  agreed  that 
he  was  the  other  of  the  two  disciples  who  heard  the 
Baptist  speak  of  Christ,  and  immediately  changed 
Masters.  The  day  following,  Jesus  findeth  Philip, 
who  afterwards  finding  Nathanael  asked  him  to 
"  come  and  see."^  Another  call  was  given  to  Andrew 
and  Peter  ;  and  James  and  John  were  also  called 
from  their  nets  to  be  ^^  fishers  of  men."'^  Matthew, 
sitting  at  the  receipt  of  custom,  heard  Jesus  saying 
"  Follow  me,"  '^  and  he  arose  and  followed  Him.''^ 
Taking  Nathanael  to  be  Bartholomew,  we  have  no 
account  whatever  of  the  circumstances  of  the  calling 
of  the  remaining  five — James  and  Judas,  the  sons  of 
Alpheus,  Simon  Zelotes,  Thomas,  and  ^' the  traitor." 

It  is  a  fair  inference,  however,  that  Andrew  and 
John,  being  disciples  of  the  Baptist,  had  been  bap- 

7  John  i.,  35-51.     s  Matt,  iv.,  18-22 ;   » ix.,  9. 


54       CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

tized  when  Jesus  called  them  ;  but  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  there  is  a  strong  enou^'h  foundation  for  the 
positive  assertion  of  the  baptism  of  the  others,  then, 
or  subsequently.  Jesus  did  not  baptize  them,  for 
He,  Himself,  baptized  nobody. ^^  It  is  not  written 
that  Andrew,  or  either  of  the  two  Johns  baptized 
them  ;  and  the  objection,  that  these  ten  baptized 
others,  being  unbaptized  themselves,  applies  equally 
to  the  Baptist.  Although  he  claimed  to  be  sent  of 
God  to  baptize  with  water,^^  yet  we  must  not  over- 
look the  indication  that  water  ba23tism  was  no  new 
thing  to  the  priests  and  Levites,  who  said  to  him, 
*'  Why  baptizest  thou,  then,  if  thou  be  not  that  Christ, 
nor  Elias,  neither  that  Prophet .?  "^^  They  were  not 
surprised  at  the  act  itself,  but  at  its  performance 
without  such  a  character  as  entitled  him,  in  their  es- 
timation, to  institute  a  new  order.  •••■  He  seems  to 
have  regarded  his  baptism  as  a  prophecy  in  symbol. 
^'7  indeed  have  baptized  you  with  tvater,  but  ^e 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  GJiost  ;"^^  and  Christ 
Himself  made  the  corresponding  contrast  between 
the  Baptist's  disciples  and  His  own  :  ^'  For  John 
truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.''^^ 

10  John  iv.,  2;    i » i.,   33;    12  verses   19-25.       ♦Appendix   (3). 
1 3  Mark  1.,  8,  and  parallels.     ^  *  Acts  i.,  5  ;  xi.,  16. 


BAPTISM   OF    THE   FIRST    COMMUNICANTS.         55 

Coming  as  he  did  in  tlie  spirit  and  power  of  Eli- 
jah,!^ and  being  declared  by  his  Lord  to  be  '^  Elijah, 
which  was  for  to  come/'^^  the  Baptist  answered  to 
the  descriptions,  and  fulfilled  the  prophecies,  which 
were  written  aforetime  concernins;  him.  Belonffins: 
to  the  old  dispensation,  his  work  was  none  the  less 
preparatory  for  the  new.  He  was  the  voice  of  one 
crying  in  the  wilderness,  and  he  made  straight  in  the 
desert  a  highway  for  our  God  ;  but  he  did  not  live 
in  the  city  that  began  to  rise  where  his  axe  was  laid  to 
the  root  of  the  trees.  There  was  none  among  them 
that  had  been  born  of  woman  greater  than  he,  but 
yet  he  was  less  than  the  least  in  that  kingdom  of 
heaven,^^  which  he  proclaimed  as  at  hand.^^  "  His 
whole  mission,"  as  Olshausen  well  observes,  "  was 
calculated,  in  accordance  with  the  office  of  the  law 
which  gives  the  knowledge  of  sin,^^  to  bring  men's 
minds  into  that  state  in  which  the  Kedeemer  invites 
them,  as  weary  and  heavy  laden,  to  come  to  Him.^^o 

What  was  John's  formula  in  baptizing,  if  he  had 
any  at  all,  is  not  recorded  :  but  simply  that  he 
preached  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission 
of  sins.-^  His  baptism  signified  reformation--  and  re- 
mission, but  not  "  the  washing  of  regeneration  and 

isLukei.,  17.  isMatt.  xi.,  14;  I'xi.,  11;  ^^u\.,2.  i  ^  Rom. 
iii.,  20.     2  0  Matt,  xi.,  28.     2  i  Mark  i.,  4.     2  2  Matt,  iii.,  8. 


56        CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  shed  on  us. 
abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour.''^^ 
Why,  then,  did  He  who  needed  no  pardon,  because 
He  had  committed  no  sin,  submit  Himself  in  this  rite 
to  His  forerunner  ?  "  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now  (as  yet), 
for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness/'^* 
He  had  not  publicly  proclaimed  Himself,  nor  had 
He  been  attested  by  His  Father,  as  the  Messiah.^^ 
Moreover  He  was  "made  under  the  Law,"26  all 
the  righteousness  of  which  He  had  fulfilled  in 
His  outward,  as  well  as  in  His  inward  life  ;  for 
He  was  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day,^?  and  pre- 
sented in  the  Temple  on  the  fortieth  f^  He  was 
subject  to  His  parents,-^  and  did  not  enter  on 
His  public  ministry  until  He  was  thirty  years  old.^'* 
He  doubtless  also  intended  to  recognize  and  sanction 
the  Baptist  as  His  predicted  Messenger.  But  the 
appropriateness  and  significance  of  His  baptism  are 
seen  most  clearly  in  the  necessity  which  was  upon 
Him,  as  the  Saviour  of  Man,  "  in  all  thing  to  be 
made  like  unto  His  brethren,"^^  Gentiles  as  well  as 
Jews,  and  especially  if  the  appearance  of  guilt  were 

2  3  Tit.  iii.,  5.  2  4  Matt,  iii.,  15.  ssjoim  i.,  33.  2  6Gal.  iv.,  4. 
2 '  Luke  ii.,  21 ;  2  8  \i^  22  ;  Lev.  xii.  2  9  mke  ii.,  51.  3  0  This  codet 
TpiccHovTa  admits  of  considerable  latitude,  but  only  in  one  direc- 
tion ;  viz.,  over  thirty  years. — Alford's  Greek  Test ;  Luke  iii.,  23  ; 
Num.  iv.,  8,  23.  43.  47.     3 '  Heb.  ii.,  17. 


BAPTISM   OF    THE   FIRST    COMMUNICANTS.         57 

involved  (witness  His  deatli,^^  and  the  form  in 
which  He  suffered  it),  for  He,  who  knew  no  sin,  was 
made  sin  for  us.^^ 

The  idea,  however,  that  John's  baptism  was 
Christian  baptism,  because  Christ  sitbmitted  to  it,  is 
refuted  by  that  very  fact.  What  a  singular  argu-. 
ment  it  is  which  supports  its  conclusion  by  the  very 
reason  which  proves  it  mistaken  !  It  was  Christ — 
not  John — who  established  Christianity.  And 
Christian  baptism  is  both  an  institution,  and  an  il- 
lustration, of  established  Christianity.  Not  of  Juda- 
ism waning,  nor  of  Christianity  crystallizing,  but  of 
Christianity  crystallized.  Christian  baptism,  by  its 
very  name,  draws  its  meaning  and  takes  its  character 
from  Christ — from  Christ  alive,  from  Christ  dead, 
from  Christ  buried,  and  from  Christ  risen.  Hence 
it  was  that  He  did  not  give  the  Apostles  their  com- 
mission to  baptize  till  after  His  resurrection.  It 
was  when  Paul,  in  looking  backward,  saw  beliind 
his  baptism  the  freighted  cross,  and  the  empty  sep- 
ulchre, that  he  wrote  to  the  Komans,  "  Know  ye 
not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ  were  baptized  into  His  death  ?  Therefore 
we  are  buried  with  Him  by  baptism  into  death,  that 
like  as  Christ  loas  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the 

32  Rom.  T.,  12.       3  3  2  Cor.  v.,  21. 


58        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  tue  also  should  lualh  in 
neivness  of  life."^^  Peter,  too,  knowing  well  the  dif- 
ference between  repenting  and  believing,  calls  bap- 
tism "  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God, 

BY    THE    RESURRECTION    OF    JeSUS    ChRIST/'^^      It   is 

clear,  that,  as  Jesus  sanctioned  it,  John's  baptism 
must  have  been  of  God's  appointment,  and  therefore 
obligatory  in  its  place  ;  but  it  could  not  be  Christian 
when  the  Author  of  Christianity  found  it,  and  sub- 
mitted to  it,  before  He  had  shoivn  Himself  as  the 
Christy  unless,  indeed,  there  were  two  Chris ts,  and 
ours  was  the  younger,  or  second  in  the  field.  To  such 
lengths  will  some  theologians  go  who  have  a  case  to 
prove  which  they  have  already  decided. 

Thus  we  have  two  conclusions,  the  proofs  of  which 
should  be  examined  more  in  detail, — 

(1.)  John's  baptism  w^as  not  Christian  baptism. 

(2.)  The  baptism  of  the  disciples,  previous  to  the 
resurrection,  was  not  Christian  baptism. 

Under  the  first  head  there  are  three  things  that 
appear  from  Scripture  ;  (a)  that  John  belonged  to 
the  legal  dispensation  ;  {h)  that  he  had  administered 
most  of  his  baptisms  before  he  knew  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah;  and  (c)  that  he  never  became  one  of  Christ's 
disciples. 

3 4  Rom.  vi.,  3,  4.         ss  i  Pet.  iii.,  21. 


BAPTISM   OF   THE   FIRST    COMMUNICANTS.         59 

(a)  The  Baptist  was  by  birth  a  Jewish  priest,  and 
by  divine  purpose  and  calling  a  prophet  and  a  Nazar- 
ite.  He  was  a  prophet  by  the  announcement  of 
Gabriel  f^  he  was  a  prophet  by  his  father's  prophecy 
concerning  him  f  he  was  a  prophet  by  the  call  which 
he  received  from  God  ;2^  he  was  a  prophet  by  his 
own  declaration  ;^^  he  was  a  prophet  in  the  estimation 
of  the  Jews  ;^^  and  he  was  a  prophet,  and  more  than 
a  prophet,  by  the  testimony  of  Christ.^^  He  was 
"  more  than  a  prophet,"  inasmuch  as  he  was  the 
subject  of  prophecy,  the  messenger  of  the  Messiah, 
and  an  eye  witness  of  His  attestation  as  such  by  the 
Father. 

No  greater  prophet  had  been  born  of  woman,  yet 
the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  greater  than 
he.  This  was  said  of  him  by  Christ,  after  He  had 
answered  the  question  which  was  brought  to  Him 
by  John's  disciples  from  their  master  in  prison  : 
^'Art  thou  He  that  should  come  .^  or  look  we  for 
another  ?'"'^ 

Coming  down  from  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration 
where  He  had  talked  with  Moses  and  Elijah,  Jesus 
told  His  disciples  not  to  tell  the  vision  to  any  man 

3  0  Luke  i.,  17;  3M.,  76;  3  8iii.^2;  1  Kings  xii.,  22;  1  Chron. 
xvii.,  3  ;  Jer.  i.,  1-4  ;  Ez.  vi.,  1 ;  vii:,  1.  3  9  John  i.,  23.  ^  o  Matt, 
xiv.,  5  ;  xxi ,  26.     *  ^  Matt  xi.,  9.     *2  Matt,  xi.,  2,  3. 


60        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 


till  He  was  risen  from  the  dead.  "  Why  then/' 
they  replied,  "  say  the  scribes  that  Elijah  must  first 
come  ?  "  Having  just  seen  him  for  a  few  moments, 
and  been  enjoined  to  secrecy,  they  could  not  see  how 
this  prophecy  had  been,  or  could  be,  fulfilled.  But 
Christ's  answer  set  them  at  rest :  ^'  Elijah  is  come 
already,  and  they  knew  him  not,  but  have  done  unto 
him  whatsoever  they  listed  ;"  for  then  they  under- 
stood that  "  He  spake  unto  them  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist."43 

It  was  in  the  Old  Testament  sense  that  the  Bap- 
tist was  a  prophet — not  in  the  New.  He  was  the 
last  representative  of  the  Law  ;  and  on  this  account 
the  more  intensely  legal.  Coming  as  he  did  from 
the  desert,  wearing  camel's  hair  and  a  leathern  girdle, 
and  living  on  locusts  and  wild  honey,  he  looked  like 
the  Law.  His  appearance  and  habits  were  severer 
than  his  Divine  Successor's,  who.  Himself,  has  drawn 
the  contrast  :  "  John  came  neither  eating  nor  drink- 
ing, and  they  say.  He  hath  a  devil.  The  Son  of  Man 
came  eating  and  drinking,  and  they  say,  Behold  a 
man  gluttonous  and  a  winebibber,  a  friend  of  pub- 
licans and  sinners.'^^'^ 

The  call  of  the  Baptist  was  like  that  which  had 
come  to   his   fellows   throughout   the   dispensation 

*3Matt.  xvil.,  1-13;   *'xl,  18,  19. 


BAPTISM  OF   THE  FIRST   COMMUNICANTS.         61 

-which  he  closed  :   "  The  word  of  God  came  unto 
John  the  son  of  Zechariah^  in  the  wilderness. ''"^^ 

His  preaching  too  was  of  the  legal  kind.  Morality- 
was  his  theme.  To  the  publicans  he  said,  "  Exact 
no  more  than  that  which  is  appointed  of  you  ;"  to 
the  soldiers,  "  Do  violence  to  no  man,  neither  accuse 
any  falsely,  and  be  content  with  your  Avages  ;''*  and 
to  the  multitude  that  came  forth  to  be  baptized  of 
him,  "  Bring  forth  therefore  fruits  worthy  of  repen- 
tance."^^ There  is  more  of  the  Gospel  in  the  Prophecy 
of  Isaiah  than  in  the  preaching  and  prophesying  of 
John.  But  he  was  adapted,  as  he  was  sent,  to 
awaken  conscience  by  applying  the  law  to  daily  life, 
and  thus  "  to  make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the 
Lord."  But  that  preparation  was  by  no  means  of 
such  a  kind  that  all  who  submitted  to  his  baptism 
believed  subsequently  on  Christ. 

The  position  that  the  office  and  ministry  of  John 
belonged  to  the  legal  dispensation  is  not  weakened 
by  those  sayings  ascribed  to  him  in  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel (granting  that  they  include  the  last  six  verses 
of  the  third  chapter),  but  rather  confirmed  ;  for  they 
were  uttered  after  he  had  baptized  Jesus  ;  and  they 
distinguished  their  author's  position  from  that  of  the 

45  1  Kings  xii.,  22;  1  Chron.  xvii.,  3;  Jer.  i,  1-4;  Ez.  vi.,  1; 
vii.,  1.     4  6  Luke  iii.,  7-14. 


62        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

least  of  those  who  w^re  to  know  the  Lord  in  His 
death  and  resTirrection  :  "  lie  that  hath  the  bride  is 
the  bridegroom  ;  but  the  friend  of  the  bridegroom, 
who  standeth  and  heareth  him,  rejoiceth  greatly  be- 
cause of  the  bridegroom's  voice  :  this,  my  joy,  there- 
fore^ is  fulJiUed."  "  Thus  the  parallelism/'  says  Al- 
ford,  ^'is  complete  :  John  not  inferior  to  any  born  of 
women — but  these,  even  the  least  of  them,  are  born  of 
another  birtfi.'^''  John  the  nearest  to  the  King  and 
the  Kingdom — standi^ig  on  the  threshold,  hut  7iever 
having  himself  entered  ;  these,  kv  rxj  ftadiXaia,  sub- 
jects, and  citizens,  and  indwellers  of  the  realm,  (^v 
TO  TtoXixEvf-ia  £v  ovpavoii^^  He,  the  friend  of  the 
bridegroom,  they,  however  weak  and  unworthy  mem- 
bers, His  body  and  His  Spouse" 

Sad  and  yet  most  beautiful  it  is,  that  when  the 
faithful  and  fearless  Baptist  was  troubled  with  doubt 
in  Herod's  dungeon,  Jesus  used  the  words  of  another 
prophet  to  enlighten  and  comfort  him.^^  Thus 
Isaiah  strengthened  John  for  his  martyrdom,  and 
helped  to  prepare  him  for  the  fullness  of  that  bless- 
ing, which  belongs,  says  Christ,  to  "  whosoever  is 
not  offended  in  me/* 

4  "^  John  i.,  12,  13  ;  iii.,  5.  *  ^  phi].  Hi.,  20,  with  country,  kingdom, 
or  citizenship,  instead  of  "  conversation."  ^  ^  Is.  xxxv.,  6,  6,  (see 
ftlso  xi.,  1-6 ;  Ixi.,  1-3)  compared  with  Matt,  xi.,  5. 


BAPTISM   OF    THE   FIEST    COMMUNICANTS.          63 

(h)  Elizabeth,  the  mother  of  John,  and  Maiy, 
the  mother  of  Jesus,  were  related  and  intimate. 
During  a  visit  of  the  latter  to  the  former,  after 
the  Annunciation,  most  wonderful  and  memorable 
communications  passed  between  them.  The  people, 
too,  ''throughout  all  the  hill  country  of  Judea," 
not  only  heard  of  the  wonders  which  attended 
the  birth  of  John,  but  also  '  laid  them  up  in  their 
hearts. "^^  And  the  shepherds,  when  Jesus  was  born, 
"  made  known  abroad  the  saying  that  was  told  them 
concerning  this  child."^^  The  two  children,  therefore, 
doubtless  heard  of  each  other  from  their  mothers,  or 
neighbors.  But,  despite  the  Holy  Families  of  the 
painters,  it  is  probable  that  they  never  met  till  they 
were  men.  At  all  events,  Jesus  was  known  to  John, 
who  evidently  held  Him  in  great  veneration  ;  for, 
when  He  came  to  be  baptized,  the  BajDtist  forbade 
Him  (^disHGoXvsr — motioned  Him  away  with  his 
hands),  saying,  "I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  Theef, 
and  comest  Thou  to  me  .^"^^  -q^^  ^q  <^yq  ^q^  ^q  g^p_ 
pose  that  John  was  sure  at  that  time  that  Jesus  was 
his  Successor,  for  he  says,  "I  knew  Him  not  (as  the 
Messiah),  but  He  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water, 
the  same  said  unto  me.  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see 
the  Spirit  descending  and  remaining  upon  Him,  the 

6  0  Luke  i.,  65,  66 ;  s » ii.,  17.     5  2  ^sisitL  iii.,  14. 


64       CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

same  is  He  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost/'^^ 
Until  this  time,  therefore,  neither  John,  nor  any 
whom  he  baptized,  knew  who  the  Christ  was. 

At  what  period,  then,  of  the  Baptist's  ministry, 
did  he  baptize  Jesus  ? 

The  fourth  Evangelist  says,  that  when  "  John 
was  not  yet  cast  into  prison,"  Jesus  went  with  His 
disciples  into  the  land  of  Judea,  and  that  He  tarried 
with  them  there,  and  baptized  ;  also  that  the  Bap- 
tist was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to  Salem,  at  the 
same  time.^^  Still,  it  appears  from  the  context,  that 
his  influence  was  waning,  and  that  his  work  was 
closing ;  that  he  knew  that  this  was  his  case,  and 
accepted  it  cheerfully.  Matthew  says,  that  "  from 
that  time  (the  im]3risonment  of  John)  Jesus  began 
to  preach  f^  Mark,  that  "  Jesus  came  into  Galilee 
preaching  the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  after 
that  John  was  put  in  prison  ;"^^  and  Luke  that  the 
baptism  of  Jesus  took  place  "  wlien  all  the  people 
were  haptized."^'^  In  Paul's  sermon  at  Antioch,  he 
speaks  of  God  raising  a  Saviour  unto  Israel  "  when 
John  hsidjlrst  preached  before  His  coming  the  baptism , 
of  repentance  to  all  the  people  ]"  and  adds,  that  as 
'^He  fulfilled  his  course,  He  said.  Whom  think  ye  that 

6  3  John  I,  33;  sMil.,  22-24.     ss  ^att.  iv.,  12-17}  5  6  Mark  i., 
14;  s'Lukeiii.,  21. 


BAPTISM   OF   THE    FIRST    COMMUNICANTS.         65 

I  am  ?^''^^  In  the  house  of  Cornelius,  Peter  declared 
that  the  Gospel  "  was  j)ublished  throughout  all  Ju- 
dea,  and  began  from  Galilee,  after  the  baptism 
which  John  preached. "^^  It  is  clear  from  these  pas- 
sages that  Christ  was  among  the  last  (Luke  makes 
Him  the  very  last)  whom  John  baptized  ;  and  that 
the  Baptist's  ministry  had  virtually  closed  before 
the  Messiah's  began."'''' 

The  Author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  who 
was  certainly  contemporaneous  with  the  Apostles, 
inquires  :  "  How  can  we  escape  if  we  neglect  so  great 
salvation,  which  at  the  first  began  to  be  spoken  by 
the  Lord  (not  by  John),  and  confirmed  unto  us  by 
them  that  heard  Him  .?"^o 

(c)  It  is  beyond  a  doubt  that  the  Baptist  never  be- 
came a  follower  of  Jesus,  for  each  in  his  lifetime, 
and  after  his  death,  had  his  own  disciples.  We  find 
also  that  the  followers  of  the  two  Masters  differed. 
Matthew  says  that  John's  disciples  came  to  Jesus, 
saying,  ^^  Why  do  we,  and  the  pharisees,  fast  oft, 
but  thy  disciples  fast  not  ?'^^^  Mark  gives  the  same 
as  this  in  substance,^^  but  Luke  a  version  which  in- 
volves other  diff'erences  :  "  Why  do  the  disciples  of 
John  fast  oft,  and  make  prayers,  and  likewise  the 

5  8  Acts  xiii.,  24-25  ;  5  9  x.,  37.  e  o  Heb.  ii.,  3.  *  See  Appen- 
dix (7).     6 1  Matt,  ix.,  14.     6  2  Mark  ii.,  18. 


66        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

disciples  of  the  pliarisees,  but  Thine  eat  and  drmk  P'^^ 
Christ's  answer  indicates  another,  and  a  much  more 
important  difference,  which  does  not  seem  to  have 
entered  the  minds  of  His  questioners  :  '^  Can  ye 
make  the  children  of  the  bride-chamber  fast  (thus 
distinguishing  His  disciples  from  John's),  while  the 
bridegroom  is  with  them  ?  "^^  (thus  distinguishing 
Himself  from  him  who  may  be  said  to  have  cried, 
Behold  the  Bridegroom  cometh  !) 

It  appears  that  but  few  of  the  many  that  John 
baptized  attached  themselves  to  Jesus  as  the  Messi- 
ah. Positive  mention  is  made  of  only  two  who 
joined  Him  while  on  earth  from  the  Baptist  !  It  is 
true  that  when  He  delivered  His  discourse  on  His 
forerunner,  "all  the  people  that  heard  Him,  and  the 
l^ublicans,  justified  God,  being  baptized  with  the  bap- 
tism of  John  ;''^^  but  there  is  too  much  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  many  of  their  voices  subsequently  swelled 
the  cry  that  was  fatal  to  their  nation  and  their  souls 
— "  Crucify  Him  !  crucify  Him  \" 

There  seems  to  have  been  considerable  rivalry,  and 
even  jealousy,  between  the  two  followings — mostly, 
however,  on  the  part  of  John's.  This  is  indicated 
by  the  questions  which  have  been  quoted  already, 
and  still  further  by  the  spirit  in  which  they  brought 

6  3  Luke  v.,  33  J  6  4v.,  31,  35;   ^^vU.,29. 


BAPTISM    OF    THE   FIRST    COMMUNICANTS.          67 

the  news  of  Christ's  success  to  then-  master  :  "Kab- 
bi,  He  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom 
Thou  barest  witness,  heJioId,  the  same  haptizeth,  and 
all  men  come  to  Himr^^  It  has  been  supposed,  but, 
I  think,  without  foundation,  that  it  was  to  make  his 
disciples  believe  on  Christ,  that  John  sent  a  deputa- 
tion of  them  from  prison  to  ask  Him  :  ^' Art  thou  He 
that  should  come,  or  do  we  look  for  another  ?"^"  The 
Lord's  reply  may  have  conduced  to  this  end  ;  but  it 
is  evident,  therefrom,  that  whether  John  had  ex- 
pected miraculous  deliverance  from  Herod,  or  had 
grown  impatient  at  the  delay  of  Jesus  in  proclaiming 
Himself  the  Messiah,  or  had  been  deceived  by  Jew- 
ish views  of  His  kingdom,  the  doubt  and  the  ques- 
tion were  his  own.  ''  Go  and  sliow  JoJin"^^  was  the 
direction  of  Christ's  answer.  The  Baptist  had  previ- 
ously made  to  his  disciples  an  emphatic  and  evangel- 
ical confession  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  the 
Saviour  of  the  world  ;  and  now  the  Lord  crowns  His 
forerunner  with  a  eulogy  of  truth  and  love  to 
brighten  that  cloud  under  Avhich  he  passes  from  our 
view. 

Still  the  influence  of  the  Baptist  was  great,  and 
his  teachings  concerning  Christ  were  not  forgotten. 
Apollos,  who  was  an  eloquent  man  and  mighty  in  the 
6  6  John  iii,,  25,  26.     ^  7  Matt,  xi.,  3 ;   « 8  xi.,  4. 


68       CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 


Scriptures,  was  instructed  in  the  way  of  the  Lord, 
and  being  fervent  in  the  spirit,  he  spake  and  taught 
diHgently  the  things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only  the 
baptism  of  Jolin.^^  The  disciples  that  Paul  found 
at  Ephesus  had  believed,  but  having  been  baptized 
unto  John's  baptism,  they  had  not  so  much  as  heard 
{did  not  so  much  as  hear  when  they  received  bap- 
tism) whether  there  was  any  Holy  Ghost ;  and 
therefore,  they  wishing  it,  Paul  had  them  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. ''''^  We  find  here  in 
this  re-baptism,  which  closes  the  mention  of  the 
Baptist  in  the  Bible,  a  striking  proof  of  the  conclu- 
sion to  which  any  one  of  our  three  steps  inevitably 
leads  us  ;  for  surely,  if  John's  ministry  and  office  be- 
longed to  the  Law,  or  if  he  had  administered  most  of 
his  baptisms  before  he  knew  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
or  if  he  were  not  a  disciple  of  the  Christ,  but  the 
head  of  a  separate  following,  his  baptism  was  not 
Christian  baptism.  Then  it  follows,  that '  without 
Christian  baptism,  and  by  express  invitation  of  the 
Lord,  Andrew,  and  John,  the  Evangelist,  partook  with 
Him  of  the  First  Communion. 

(2.)  The  only  record  which  we  have  of  Christ's 
disciples  as  baptizers,  previous  to  the  resurrection,  is 
found  in  the  third  and  fourth  chapters  of  John's 

«  9  Acts  xviii.,  24,  26  ;  ' » xix.,  1-7.     *  Appendix  (4). 


BAPTISM   OF   THE   FIRST   COMMUNICANTS.  69 

Gospel.  Here  we  see  that  these  baptisms  were  ad- 
ministered in  Judea,  before  the  Baptist's  imprison- 
ment ;  and,  therefore,  before  the  preaching  of  Christ, 
''  which  began  from  Galilee  ofier  the  hajotism  tvhich 
John  preached,"  or,  as  Mark  has  it,  ''after  that  John 
was  iDut  in  prison." 

We  have  no  ground  for  supposing  that  these  bap- 
tizers  were  the  twelve  Apostles,  for  they  had  not  3^6 1 
been  called.  It  is  true  that  John,  Andrew,  Peter, 
Philip,  and  Nathanael,  had  already  conversed  with 
Jesus,  and  it  is  probable  that  all  of  them  regarded 
Him  thenceforth  as  the  Messiah  ;  but  we  find  that 
the  first  three  had  resumed  their  occupations  when 
He  called  them,  by  the  sea  of  Galilee,  to  be  His  fol- 
lowers.'^ 

In  the  charge  which  He  delivered  to  the  twelve  to 
prepare  them  for  their  first  mission — instructions 
which  made  the  tenth  chapter  in  Matthew's  twenty- 
eight — He  gave  them  no  authority  to  baptize,  al- 
though He  entered  into  such  details  as  what  they 
should  and  should  not  take  for  their  journey.  And 
the  same  is  true  of  His  charge  to  the  seventy.  It 
ought  also  to  be  considered  that  He  limited  their 
efforts  to  "  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel," 
although  He  was  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and  for- 
•^'iMatt.  iv.,  18-22. 


70        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

bade  their  entry  into  "  any  city  of  the  Samaritans/' 
although  He  had  previously  revealed  Himself  to 
these  very  people,  and  ''many'*  of  them  had  believed 
on  Him  ''  for  the  saying  of  the  woman."'^ 

Moreover,  He  instructed  the  twelve  to  preach,  as 
the  Baptist  had  done,  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
was  at  hand  ;'^  and  it  is  recorded  of  them,  that,  like 
him,  "  they  went  out,  and  preached  that  men  should 
repent.""^  From  the  time  that  they  loere  called  till 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  there  is  not  a  single  baptism 
recorded.  Indeed  haptizing  is  mentioned  in  con- 
nection loith  believing  but  once  in  the  Gospels,  and 
in  that  case  after  the  resurrection.^^  Their  only 
outward  act  was  anointing  with  oil,"^' — one  example, 
among  many  others,  which  we  do  not  follow,  al- 
though we  foolishly  claim  to  be  literally,  and  alone 
of  all  the  churches,  apostolical. 

Every  student  of  the  Gospel  must  have  noticed 
how  often  Jesus  showed  anxiety  to  conceal  those  very 
things  which  seemed  best  adapted  to  prove  His  di- 
vine character,  and  command  appropriate  worship. 
Thus,  as  we  have  seen.  He  told  His  disciples  that 
they  should  not  tell  of  PI  is  transfiguration  "  till  the 
Son  of  Man  loere  risen  from  the  dead]"''''  and  when 

7  2  John  iv.,  39.  7  3  Matt,  x.,  7.  '^  Mark  vi.,  12  ;  ^5  xvi.,  16  ; 
'«  vi.,  13;   77  ix.,  9. 


BAPTISM    OF   THE   FIRST   COMMUNICANTS.         71 

He  gave  sight  to  the  blind, '^  when  He  opened  the  ears 
of  the  deaf,  and  loosened  the  tongue  of  the  dumb/^ 
when  He  healed  the  leper/^  when  He  raised  the 
dead,^^  and  lolien  Peter  confessed  Him  as  the  Christ, ^'^ 
He  straitly  charged  and  commanded  them  to  tell  no 
man  that  thing.  How,  then,  can  we  suppose  that  he 
had  authorized  any  of  His  disciples  to  baptize  in 
His  name,  as  this  very  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and 
the  Kedeemer  of  the  world  ?  In  the  prayer  which 
He  taught  them.  He  made  no  allusion  to  Himself ; 
and  it  was  almost  when  His  hour  had  come,  that 
He  added  the  plea  through  which  the  prayers  of 
Christendom  have  since  ascended  to  heaven:  "Hith- 
erto ye  have  asked  nothing  in  my  name  :  ash,  and 
ye  shall  receive,  that  your  joy  may  hefull."^^ 

But  the  Apostles  themselves  did  not  understand 
either  His  character  or  His  mission.  Even  John,  who 
leaned  on  His  bosom,  mistook  the  nature  of  His 
kingdom,  when  he  and  his  brother  j)rayed  that  one 
of  them  might  sit  on  His  right  hand,  and  the  other 
on  His  left,  when  He  should  come  in  His  glory. ^^ 
Their  mother  also  had  made  the  same  mistake,  for 
Matthew  represents  her  as  making  this  request  for 

'  8  Matt,  ix.,  30.  '  9  Mark  vii.,  36.  ^  o  Matt,  viii.,  4.  8  i  Mark 
v.,  43.  8  2  Lui^e  ix.,  21 ;  Mark  viii...  30.  8  3  joha  xvi.,  24.  8  4  Mark 
X.,  35-40. 


72        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

her  sons.^^  But  Jesus  replied,  "  Ye  hioiu  7iot  ivhat 
ye  asky""  and  then  He  tried  to  show  them  that  the 
heavenly  glory  comes  by  suffering— the  Crown  by 
the  Cross.  The  Apostles  were  Jews,  and  thought 
of  Jesus  as  a  Jevr.  Nathanael  confessed  Him  as  the 
Son  of  God,  but  also  as  the  King  of  IsraeU^  When 
Pie  alluded  to  His  coming  resurrection,  "they  kept 
that  saying  with  themselves,  questioning  one  with 
another,  what  the  rising  from  the  dead  should 
mean."^^  When  He  foretold  His  Passion,  "  Peter 
took  Him,  and  began  to  rebuke  Him,  saying,  "  Be 
it  far  from  Thee,  Lord."^^  How  Ke  must  have  felt 
what  depended  on  "  the  decease  which  He  should  ac- 
complish at  Jerusalem,"  when  He  replied  to  the 
Kock,  and  the  Holder  of  the  Keys,  "  Get  thee  be- 
hind me,  Satan  ! "  After  He  was  dead,  they  did 
not  expect  Him  to  rise,  and  when  He  had  risen,  and 
appeared  to  the  faithful  women,  "  their  words  seemed 
like  idle  tales,  and  they  believed  them  not/'^^  Even 
after  He  came  to  them  from  the  grave,  and  they 
knew  Him,  His  disciples  inquired,  "  Lord,  wilt  Thou 
at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom  unto  Israel  ?"^^  No 
wonder  that  He  upbraided  them  for  their  unbelief,^^ 
and  said  to  two  of  them,  "  0  fools,  and  slow  of  heart, 

8 5  Matt.  XX.,  20-28.    s  e  John  i.,  49.     « '  Mark  ix..  10.     ^  8  ]Matt. 
xvi.,  22,  23.    8  9  Luke  xxiv.,  1-11.     » »  Acts  i.,  6.    ^  ^  Mark  xvi.,  14. 


BAPTISM   OF    THE   FIRST   COMMUNICANTS.         73 

to  believe  all  that  tlie  prophets  have  spoken.  Ought 
not  Christ  to  have  suffered  these  things,  and  to  enter 
into  His  glory  ?  "^^ 

We  have  seen  that  Paul's  idea  of  baptism,  and  Pe- 
ter's also,  after  the  descent  of  the  Spirit,  involved  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  the  burial  and 
rising  again  of  believers  with  Him.  But  the  baptisms 
which  we  have  been  considering  were  administered 
while  He  was  in  the  flesh,  and  before  the  administra- 
tors understood  that  He  should  die,  and  be  raised 
again  the  third  day.  It  is  nonsense  to  talk,  in  this 
connection,  about  foreseeing  and  appropriating  faith, 
for  they  did  not  want  Him  to  die.  It  was  by  His 
life,  not  by  His  death,  that  they  hoped  His  king- 
dom would  come,  and  the  subjects  of  their  baptism 
were  no  wiser  than  they.  Peter,  who  would  have 
fought  for  Him  with  the  sword,  denied  Him  when 
He  was  captured  ;  and  "  then,"  when  He  needed 
them  most,  all  the  disciples  forsook  Him  and  fled."^^. 
After  He  was  crucified,  they  said  of  themselves, 
"  We  trusted  (alas  for  the  tense  !)  that  it  had  been 
He  which  should  have  redeemed  IsraeV'^^  It  was 
to  the  risen  Christ,  whom-  they  did  not  recognize, 
that  they  made  this  confession.     "  Then  o;pened  He 

92  Luke  xxiv.,  25,  26.     ^s  Matt,  xxvi.,  56.     ^^  ^ulce  xxiv.,  21. 


74       CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

their  understanding,  that  they  might  understand  the 
Scriidtures  ;"^^  and  then  He  gave  them  their  com- 
mission to  preach  the  Gospel  and  baptize}^ 

9  5  Luke  xxiv.,  45.     se  Matt,  xxviii.,  19,  20 ;  Mark  xvi.,  15,  16. 


APOSTOLIC   EXAMPLE.  75 


APOSTOLIC  EXAMPLE. 

I  CANNOT  see  how  any  careful  reader  of  tlie  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  can  believe  that  the  primitive  churches 
were  intended  to  furnish  an  exact  model  in  constitu- 
tion, government,  doctrine,  and  custom,  for  all 
Christians  to  the  end  of  time — such  an  illustrate  1 
lesson  as  Moses  had  when  he  was  instructed  to  make 
all  things  according  to  the  pattern  shown  him  in  the 
mount.  Certain  it  is  that  no  church  of  the  present 
day  cdrresponds  precisely  with  the  first  congrega- 
tions. An  exceedingly  clear  and  conclusive  23roof  of 
this  statement  is  the  fact  that  the  first  congregations 
represented  to  some  extent  the  differences  which  ex- 
isted among  the  Apostles  themselves. 

Christianity,  both  as  an  experience  and  an  organ- 
ism, grew.  As  an  experience,  it  wrought  in  individ- 
ual character,  and  through  its  circumstances,  while, 
in  its  turn,  is  was  modified  and  individualized  by 
them  ;  and,  as  an  organism,  it  was  affected  by  the 
age  on  which  its  effect  was  so  divine.  The  influence 
of  Judaism  on  the  Apostles,  and  that  of  heathen 
philosophy  on  the  fathers,  were  far  greater,  and  are 


76        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

much  more  distinctly  marked  in  their  histories,  than 
is  commonly  supposed. 

Christ  in  man  is  a  growth.  So  is  Christianity  in 
the  world.  When  Andrew  and  Philip  told  Jesus 
that  the  Greeks  who  had  come  to  worship  at  the 
feast,  wished  to  see  Him,  He  made  the  seemingly  ir- 
relevant and  mysterious  reply  concerning  Himself 
and  His  Kingdom  :  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you. 
Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  unto  the  ground  and  die, 
it  ahideth  alone  ;  but,  if  it  die  it  bringeth  forth 
much  fruit."^  He  sowed  Himself  in  human  life, 
which,  like  a  field,  by  the  sky  and  the  plow,  had 
been  prepared  for  Him  by  all  the  world's  experience 
previous  to  His  coming.  With  such  seed  below, 
and  such  a  heaven  above,  eighteen  hundred  years 
have  not  passed  in  vain  ;  and  the  present  is  richer 
by  far  in  spiritual  wealth  than  the  past.  That 
knew  Him  in  the  flesh,  and  holds  His  tomb  ;  this 
knows  Him  in  the  flesh  no  more,  but  in  the  power  of 
His  resurrection,  in  His  word  abiding  in  us,  and  in 
His  personal  presence  with  us,  "even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world." 

Christ  is  still  growing  in  His  Church,  and  His 
Church  is  still  growing  in  Him. 

Although  the  disciples  had  seen  the  risen  Christ, 

1  John  xii.,  24. 


APOSTOLIC    EXAMPLE.  77 

and  He  had  opened  their  understanding,  and  they 
had  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  yet  they 
still  looked  on  the  Saviour  and  mankind  with  Jewish 
eyes.  The  Gentiles  could  be  converted,  for  prose- 
lytes were  numerous  ;  but  their  conversion  was  still 
to  be  to  Moses  and  the  Law,  as  well  as  to  Christ 
and  the  Gospel ;  and  circumcision  was  to  be  at  once 
a  condition  and  a  sign  of  their  reception  by  the  Jew- 
ish Christians.  Peter,  who  opened  the  door  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  to  the  Jews  (as  he  did  subse- 
quently to  the  Gentiles  in  fulfilment  of  the  saying 
of  Christ),  spoke  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  in 
Solomon's  Porch,  and  before  Annas  the  High  Priest, 
as  a  Jew.  There  are  many  expressions  in  these 
speeches  which  show  the  height  to  which  his  inner 
life  had  grown,  and  from  which  he  looked  on  the 
world.  Stephen  seems  to  have  been  the  first  of 
Jewish  believers  to  see  the  temporary  character  of 
the  Law  and  the  Temj^le  ;  "  for,"  said  his  accusers, 
"we  have  heard  him  say  that  this  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
shall  destroy  this  place,  and  change  the  customs 
which  Moses  delivered  us."^  How  wonderful  that 
he  thus  anticipated  the  Pharisee  who  "  was  consent- 
ing unto  his  death  !  "  Saul  little  dreamed  that  the 
murdering  zealots,  who  laid  their  clothes  at  his  feet, 

2  Acts  vi.,  14. 


78        CLOSE    COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

were  stoning  his  forerunner.  During  the  persecu- 
tion which  this  martyrdom  inaugurated,  "  they  that 
were  scattered  abroad,"  ^'travelled  as  far  as  Phenice, 
and  Cyprus,  and  Antioch,  preaching  the  word  to  no7ie^ 
hut  unto  the  Jeios  only."^  Necessity  was  driving 
them  where  Christ  had  told  them  to  "  go,"  but  still 
they  did  not  know  Him  well  enough  to  offer  Him 
*^  to  every  creature." 

In  process  of  time,  and  most  opportunely  (for 
Paul  had  appeared  as  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  might  have  made  a  schism  between  the  circum- 
cision and  the  un circumcision),  Peter  saw  just  such 
a  vision  as  was  fitted  for  a  believing  Jew  whom 
Heaven  intended  to  teach  the  way  of  the  Lord  more 
perfectly.'^  He  was  such  an  apt  pupil  that  he  went 
with  the  men  whom  Cornelius  had  sent,  and  preached 
to  him,  his  kinsmen,  and  his  friends,  although  it  was 
unlawful  for  a  Jew  "  to  keep  company  or  come  unto 
one  of  another*nation."  But,  although  they  received 
the  word  of  God  readily,  the  circumcisers  contended 
with  the  preacher  when  he  returned  to  Jerusalem, 
saying,  ''  Thou  loentest  in  to  men  wicircumcised,  and 
didst  eat  tvith  them.^'^  This  same  Apostle,  who,  as 
has  been  truly  said,  was  the  first  to  apprehend  a 
great  principle,  and  the  first  to  draw  back  from  it, 

sActsxi.,  19;    ^x.,  9-18;   ^  xi.,  3. 


APOSTOLIC    EXAMPLE.  79 

was  subsequently  opposed  by  Paul,  who  charged  him 
with  hypocrisy  in  this  matter  as  follows  :  "  And 
when  Peter  was  come  to  Antioch,  I  withstood  him  to 
the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed.  For  before 
that  certain  came  from  James,  he  did  eat  loith  the 
Gentiles  (and  probably  communed  with  them)  h\\t 
when  they  ivere  come,  he  ivithdreio  and  sejxcrated 
himself  (also,  no  doubt,  from  the  Lord's  table)  fea7'- 
ing  them  that  were  of  the  circumcision.  And  the 
other  Jews  disemhled  likeioise  luith  him,  insomuch 
that  Barnabas  also  was  carried  away  ivith  their  dis- 
simidation.  But  when  I  saw  that  they  walked  not 
ujDrightly  according  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  I 
said  unto  Peter,  before  them  all.  If  thou,  being  a  Jew 
livest  after  the  manner  of  the  Grentiles,  and  not  as  do 
the  JcAvs,  lohy  compellest  thou  the  Gentiles  to  live  as 
do  the  Jeivs  ?  '"^ 

Well  might  this  Heaven-ordained  and  bold  Apostle 
speak  of  his  perils  among  his  own  countrymen,^  for 
how  could  he  forget,  among  all  his  trials,  the  result 
of  that  futile  expedient  which  he  adopted  in  Jerusa- 
lem at  the  suggestion  of  James,  to  escape  the  fury  of 
the  "  many  thousands  "  of  believing  Jews,  who  were 
"  all  zealous  of  the  law  ?  "^  They  had  heard  that  he 
taught  the  Jews  who   were  among  the  Gentiles,  to 

6  Gal.  ii.     '  2  Cor.  xi.,  26.     «  Acts  xxi.,  20,  21. 


80        CLOSE  COMMUNION^  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

forsake  Moses ^  and  not  to  circumcise  their  children , 
nor  to  tvalh  after  the  customs.  It  is  therefore  pro- 
posed that  he  shall  join  four  brethren  who  have  a 
vow  of  the  Nazarite,^  that  they  may  shave  their 
headsj  and  "that  all  men,"  says  James,  ^^may  know 
that  those  things  whereof  they  are  informed  of  thee 
are  nothing  ;  but  that  thou  thyself  walkest  orderly^ 
and  keepest  the  laio.'''  But  "those  things"  were^zo^ 
"  nothing,"  for  he  understood  (perhaps  not  as  well 
then  as  subsequently)  that  Christ  had  fulfilled  the 
law,  and  that  its  observance  either  implied  that  He 
had  not  come,  or  that,  in  coming.  He  had  not  done 
what  He  claimed.  Surely  Paul  meant  nothing  less 
than  this  when  he  said  in  his  rebuke  to  Peter,  "For 
if  I  build  again  the  things  which  I  destroyed  (allud- 
ing probably  to  Peter's  previous  violations  of  the  law 
in  keeping  company  with  Gentiles,  and  to  his  know- 
ledge of  his  freedom  in  Christ),  I  am  a  transgres- 
sor ;"^^  or  in  that  vehement  declaration,  "  Behold  I 
Paul  say  unto  you,  that,  if  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ 
shall  profit  you  nothing  :"^^  and  especially  in  view  of 
the  two  verses  that  follow,  for  they  apply  both  to 
Gentile  and  Jew. 

We  have  thus  seen  that  the  Jewish  and  Judaiz- 
ing  element  was  so  strong  in  the  church  at  Jerusa- 

9  Acts  xxi.,  23,  24 ;  Numb,  vi.,  2-21.     ^ »  Gal.  ii.,  18  ;    »  W..  2. 


APOSTOLIC    EXAMPLE.  81 

lem,  that  they  held  it  necessary  to  drciimcise  their 
children,  and  took  pains  that  the  Jews  of  other 
churches,  even  far  away,  should  not  depart  from 
Moses,  and  even  tried  to  hring  the  Gentiles  (appar- 
ently with  the  sanction  of  James)  under  the  yoke  of 
the  ceremonial  law.  How  general,  persistent,  and 
successful  were  the  efforts  of  the  Judaizers  may  he 
inferred  from  Paul's  frequent  and  earnest  warnings 
against  them.  How  terrihly  cutting  is  that  name 
which  he  gives  their  formalism,  and  them,  when  he 
says  to  the  Philipians,  "  Beware  of  dogs,  he  ware  of 
evil  workers,  beware  of  the  concision  " — this  mere 
amputation,  this  surgery.  '^- 

It  was  because  Peter,  and  James,  and  John,  did  not 
pour  the  light  which  they  had  received  themselves, 
into  the  Jerusalem  church,  and  because  they  walked 
as  if  they  had  been  in  darkness,  or  twilight,  as  to 
Christian  liberty,  that  Paul  condemned  them  as  he 
did.  But  especially  Peter,  for  he  had  seen  a  vision 
direct  from  heaven,  and  then,  in  confirmation  of  it, 
the  Holy  Ghost  given  to  the  uncircumcised  when 
they  believed.  But  the  others  had  both  heard  and 
accepted  the  lesson  from  him,^^  and  w^ere  to  be 
blamed  for  not  enforcing  it. 

Now  what  shall  we  say  to  this  apostolic  example, 
12  Phil,  iii.,  2.         13  Acts  si.,  1-18. 


82        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  Oil  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

or  to  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  as  a  pattern  to  he 
copied  hy  Christians  in  detail,  to  the  letter,  and  al- 
ways ?  Does  our  hrother,  the  Jew,  who  receives 
and  preaches  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  do  wrong  in  not 
circumcising  his  children  ?  Or  does  he  do  the  more 
honor  to  his  Master  in  loving,  trusting,  and  following 
Him  as  "  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth  ?  "^^  But  in  so  acting, 
neither  he,  nor  any  of  the  Jewish  converts,  follows 
James,  and  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  but  rather,  al- 
though not  precisely,  Paul,  and  the  church  at  Anti- 
och,  where  believers  on  Christ  were  first  called 
Christians. 

Literalists  pick  what  they  please  from  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  try  to  reproduce  it  exactly — some  one 
thing,  and  others  another — but  much  is  rejected,  or 
explained  away,  which,  on  their  grounds^  ought  to 
be  followed  ;  such  as  anointing  with  oil,^^  eating 
a  meal  in  connection  with  the  communion,^^  wash- 
ing each  others  feet,^^  holding  property  in  com- 
mon,^^  distributing  daily  to  the  poor  from  the  com- 
mon stock, ^^  appointing  an  order  of  distributors, 
(deacons  ?)  who  also,  like  Stephen  and  Philip,  are 

1 4  Rom.  X.,  4.  1 5  Mark  vi.,  13  ;  James  v.,  14.  ^  ^  Matt,  xxvi., 
21,  23.     1 7  John  xiii.,  14.     is  Acts  ii.,  44,  45;  v.,  1-11.     ^^  Acts 

Ti.,  1. 


APOSTOLIC   EXAMPLE.  83 

preacherSj^o  laying  on  of  hands,-^  baptism  in  the 
name  of  tlie  Lord  JesnSj^^  and  many  other  acts  of 
the  Apostles  which  scrutiny  reveals. 

The  mere  fact  that  it  appears  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  that  believers  partook  of  the  Lord's  supper 
jvfter  baptism,  by  no  means  proves  that  every  be- 
liever should  be  baptized  before  he  communes,  and 
far  less  that  I  am  bound  to  exclude  my  brother  from 
the  communion  because  he  differs  from  me  on  what 
constitutes  water  baptism.  How  we  can  regard 
apostolic  example  as  an  infallible  guide  to  the  right 
decision  in  a  case,  which,  according  to  our  conviction, 
did  not  exist  in  the  apostolic  times,  needs  explana- 
tion. The  Apostles  differed  among  themselves,  and 
so  did  the  early  Christians,  but  not,  as  far  as  we 
know,  on  the  conditions  or  subjects  of  water  bap- 
tism. But  what  is  the  situation  at  present  ?  The 
great  majority  of  Christians  do  not  regard  dipping 
as  essential  to  the  ordinance ;  while  we,  the  small 
minority,  do.  But  we  all  love  Christ,  and  feel  that 
our  life  is  hid  with  Him  in  God.  In  Him  we  are 
one.  Pie  is  the  vine,  we  are  the  branches  ;  He  is 
the  body,  we  are  the  members.  To  all  of  us  His 
flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  His  blood  is  drink  indeed. 

2  0  Acts  vi.,  13 ;  viii.,5;   2iviii.,17;  xix.,  6;  Heb.  vi.,  2.    ^2  Acts 
viii.,  16  J  X.,  48 ;  xix...  5  5  Rom.  vi.,  3  j  Gal.  iii.,  27. 


84       CLOSE    COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

We  all  discern,  more  or  less  distinctly,  the  Lord's 
body  in  the  Lord's  supper.  Now  the  question  is, 
What  ivould  tlce  Ajyostles  have  done  in  similar  cir- 
cumstances ?  Would  they  have  received  one  an- 
other^ or  excluded  one  another  .^  The  reply  that  only 
dipping  is  baptism,  and  that  we  do  not  read  of  any 
but  the  dipped  communing,  is  irrelevant,  for,  if  we 
want  to  be  guided  by  apostolic  example,  ive  must  find 
an  analogous  case — a  case  of  serious  difference — and 
mark  the  conduct  of  the  parties  concerned.  Look  at 
Paul.  What  could  be  more  emphatic  than  his  as- 
sertions, or  more  conclusive  than  his  arguments,  that 
Christ  had  fulfilled  the  law,  and  forever  freed  be- 
lievers from  bondage  to  its  ceremonies  ?  But  Avho 
was  it  that  withdrew  and  separated  themselves  here  ? 
It  was  the  Judaizers,  who  obeyed  only  part  of  the  let- 
ter, and  were  inflamed  with  zeal  to  bring  the  Gentiles 
under  it  all  ;  and  Peter  was  among  them.  There 
were  bitter  dissensions  about  days  and  meats  among 
the  Romans,  but  Paul,  ever  mindful  of  the  unity  of 
the  faith,  poured  the  oil  of  Christian  charity  upon 
the  troubled  waters  :  "  Now  the  God  of  patience  and 
consolation  grant  you  to  be  like-minded  one  toward 
another,  according  to  Christ  Jesus  ;  that  ye  may  with 
one  mind  and  one  mouth  glorify  God,  even  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.      Wherefore  receive 


APOSTOLIC   EXAMPLE.  85 

ye  one  another  as  Christ  also  received  us  to  the 
glory  of  God."^^  "  Hast  thou  faith  ?  "  said  the  same 
Apostle.  (Dost  thou  believe  that  nothing  hut  clip- 
ping is  baptism,  and  that  baptism  is  essential  to  com- 
munion ?)  "  Have  it  to  thyself  before  God."^"^  But 
if  thou  dost  exclude  thy  brother  from  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, thou  judgest  him  ;  thou  passest  upon  his  quali- 
fications ;  and  it  is  of  thee,  I  think,  that  the  Apostle 
asks,  "  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's 
servant  ?  To  his  oiun  master  he  standeth  orfalleth. 
Yea,  he  shall  he  holden  up,  for  God  is  able  to  mahe 
him  standy^'^  It  may  well  seem  to  many,  that,  in 
the  spirit  of  the  thing,  apostolic  example  is  in  favor 
of  open  communion. 

Although  with  all  the  depth  and  keenness  of  his 
great  nature,  Paul  felt  the  inappropriateness  and 
danger  of  adhesion  to  the  Mosaic  law  on  the  part  of 
Christians,  and  opposed  it  against  his  brother  Apos- 
tles and  all  the  Judaizing  believers,  incurring  suspi- 
cion, hatred,  and  persecution,  yet  we  find  him  circum- 
cising Timothy,  whose  father  was  a  Greek.  But 
,  we  must  not  think  the  less  of  Paul's  sincerity  on  this 
account,  but  the  more.  He  knew  the  difference  be- 
tween general  principles  and  particular  cases.  This 
concession  was  made   "  because  of  the  Jews,"-^  not 

2  3  Rom.  XV.,  5,  6,  7 ;  2  4  xiv.,  22 ;  «  s  xiv.,  4 ;  2  e  Acts  xvi.,  3. 


86        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

in  fear,  but  in  the  fearless  love  which  longed  for 
then-  salvation.  He  would  prevent  opposition  as  far 
as  he  could,  and  win  them  by  degrees.  "  To  the 
Jews,"  said  he,  "  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I  might 
gain  the  Jews."'^''  Behold  this  dauntless  and  eloquent 
champion  of  freedom  from  Moses  in  Christ,  bound 
with  a  vow  of  the  Nazarite,  and  trying  to  carry  it 
out  in  the  temple,  but  prevented  by  the  fury  of  the 
brethren  whose  suspicions  he  thus  attempts  to  al- 
lay. And  this  is  the  grand  Apostle,  never  grander 
than  now,  who  on  looking  at  the  past,  which  was  full 
of  types  and  shadows  that  had  concealed  the  sub- 
stance from  all  but  a  few  in  so  many  generations, 
magnified  the  Christ  as  "  blotting  out  the  handiurit- 
ing  of  ordinances,"  taking  it  '^  out  of  the  way,''  and 
"  NAILING  IT  TO  His  CROSS.'^^s  And  this  is  his  explana- 
tion :  "  To  them  that  are  under  the  law  (I  became) 
as  under  the  law,  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are 
under  the  laiu'^  These  words,  and  those  which  fol- 
low, have  an  important  meaning,  for  they  refer  to 
actions,  the  seeming  inconsistency  of  which  required 
an  apology  :  "  To  the  weak  became  I  as  weak,  that  I 
might  gain  the  loeak.  I  am  made  all  things  to  all 
men,  that  I  might  by  all  means  save  some.'' 

He  who  holds  that  these  concessions  were  in  things 

2  7  1  Cor.  ix  ,  20-22.     2  s  Col.  ii.,  14. 


APOSTOLIC    EXAMPLE.  87 

indifferent,  as  many  do,  who  would  make  the  liberty 
w^hich  we  have  in  Christ  as  nothing,  can  neither  have 
studied  this  Apostle  nor  the  early  church.  He  was 
influenced  by  his  knowledge  that  the  letter  of  what 
was  then  the  Scriptures  was  greatly  in  favor  of  the 
Judaizing  believers,  and  that  conscientiously,  like 
himself  before  his  conversion,  they  were  zealous  for  the 
law,  which  they  considered  as^ binding  forever.  "If 
once  divine,''  they  might  convincingly  argue,  "always 
divine  ;  if  once  obligatory,  always  obligatory  ;"  and 
for  its  duration  they  might  have  appealed  to  the  liter- 
al words  of  Moses  who  delivered  it.  And  how  often 
would  "forever"  have  flashed  in  their  eyes,  and  rung 
in  their  ears  !  They  had  no  precept  for  the  abolition 
of  their  ritual  ;  and  it  was  easy  to  think  that  in  its 
observance  they  could  worship  the  Christ  who  had 
fulfilled  it,  as  well  as  they  had  thus  anticipated  His 
advent.  It  was  not  by  the  Book  that  the  Council  at 
Jerusalem  freed  the  Gentiles  from  the  yoke  which 
for  ages  had  galled  the  Jews,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost, '^^ 
zvhose  ivill  loas  read  in  His  outpouring  upon  the  un^ 
circumcised}^  Is  not  the  same  Spirit  with  us  ?  If 
not,  we  are  not  "the  body  of  Christ,"  but  His  corpse. 
His  resurrection  is  in  vain,  and  His  promise  is  broken. 
Bat  in  the  still  small  voice  which  sounds  from  the 

2  9  Acts  XV.,  28.     3 "  Acts  xi.,  17. 


88        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

present  heaven  in  the  believing  heart,  He  still  saith, 
"Lo  I  am  vv'ith  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world."  '^  Now  the  Lord  is  that  Spirit."^!  We  need 
not  fear  that  He  will  lead  ns  to  contradict  His  in- 
spiration,"'^ but  we  may  hope  that  if  we  open  our 
hearts  to  Him,  and  study  His  work  among  us,  which 
is  no  less  real  to-day  than  eighteen  hundred  years 
ago.  He  will  enlighten  our  understanding,  and  help 
us  to  rightly  interpret  His  words  which  are  "  spirit 
and  life."33 

Vv^hile  it  is  evident  that  in  apostolic  times  it  was 
the  custom  and  delight  of  believers  to  be  baptized, 
and  then  to  commune,  it  is  not  so  clear  that  none 
participated  but  those  who  had  received  Christian 
baptism  ;  for  what  does  Paul  mean  when  he  says  to 
the  flomans,  ''  Know  ye  not  that  so  inany  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into 
Plis  death  ?  "^^  Were  there  some,  who,  having  been 
baptized  j)revious  to  the  resurrection,  had  neither  been 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  nor  into  His  death?'-''! 
think  that  there  were  (perhaps  this  was  the  case  of 
the  Ephesian  ^'  disciples  "),  and  I  think  so,  notwith- 
standing the  objection  that  this  makes  the  Apostle 
argue  from  a  fact  which  was  not  applicable  to  all  the 

3  1  2  Cor.  iii.,  17.  32  i  pet.  i.,  10-12.  3 3  jobu  vi.,  63.  3  4  Hq^^^ 
vi.,  3.  *  Appendix  (8). 


APOSTOLIC   EXAMPLE.  89 

rnenibers  of  the  Koman  church.  But  that  is  just  what 
his  words  imply,  and  we  know  that  in  arguing  for 
the  resurrection  from  baptism  for  the  dead,  he  alluded 
to  a  practice  which  was  not  universal.'*'  In  writing  to 
the  Galatians  he  seems  to  intimate  by  the  same  dis- 
tinction, that  some  of  them,  as  well  as  of  the 
Komans,  had  not  received  Christian  baptism  :  "  Ye 
are  all  the  children  of  God  hy  faith  in  Jesus  Christ ;  " 
then  the  additional  reason,  or  sign,  which  was  true 
probably  of  by  far  the  most  of  them  :  "  For  as  many 
of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  jjiit  on 
Christ."^^  These  had  put  on  His  sonship,  and  hence 
they  were  "  children  "  not  only  "  by  faith,"  but  also 
by  a  Christian  profession.  It  has  been  supposed  that 
all  who  were  baptized  previous  to  the  resurrection, 
and  attached  to  Christ  afterwards,  were  rebaptized 
like  the  Ephesian  disciples  ;  but  of  this  there  is  no 
hint,  while  there  is  an  intimation,  as  has  been  shown, 
to  the  contrary.  It  should  be  noticed  that  the  re- 
baptisms  which  are  recorded  were  not  administered 
because  the  recipients  were  unfit  for  communion 
(Paul  styles  them  "disciples  "),  but  because  there 
had  been  no  recognition  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  their 
baptism,  f 

Kidicule,  as  we  may  in  others,  the  habit  of  follow- 

3  5  Gal.  iii.,  26,  27.    *  Appendix  (5).    f  Appendix  (4). 


90        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

ing  tlie  beaten  path — treacling  unthinkingly  where 
their  ancestors  and  friends  have  trod  before  them — 
many  of  us  walk  in  the  same  way  ourselves.  But 
I  am  persuaded  that  on  careful  study,  and  reconsid- 
eration, there  will  be  a  wonderful  falling  off  from 
the  million  and  more  who  hold  that  we  are  taught 
by  "apostolic  example"  (1)  that  water-baptism  is 
absolutely  essential  to  communion  ;  and  (2)  that, 
in  addition  to  following  our  own  understanding  of 
the  Scriptures,  we  are  bound  to  exclude  our  fellow 
Christians,  who  cannot  see  that  nothing  but  dipping 
is  baptism,  from  the  Lord's  table. 

Regarding  both  of  these  inferences  as  overdrawn, 
and  the  second  as  unscriptural  in  itself,  it  seems  really 
terrible  for  us  to  demand  that  they  shall  be  strictly 
obeyed  as  if  they  were  the  very  voice  of  God  ;  albeit 
the  Lord  Himself  established  the  communion  before 
He  even  so  much  as  mentioned  water  baptisin  ivith 
helieving.  We  ignore  the  most  significant  fact  that 
His  death  and  resurrection  came  betioeen  the  last 
sujoper  and  the  first  ajoostolical  commission  to  bap- 
tize. Is  it  Christ,  or  baptism,  that  we  worship  when 
we  insist  that  His  teachings  and  example  shall  be 
set  aside  for  questionable  inferences  from  the  action 
of    fallible   men,    whom   their   inspired   biographer 


APOSTOLIC   EXAMPLE.  91 

shows  to  have  been  neither  perfect  in  their  obedience, 
nor  their  understanding  ? 

Some  of  our  Baptist  papers,  which  are  apt  to  be 
mere  ledgers  of  denominational  business,  varied  a 
little  with  editorial  platitudes,  and  memoranda  of 
sectarian  hopes  and  fears,  spites  and  likings,  igno- 
rance and  presumption,  are  printing  arguments  for 
our  exclusiveness,  which  are  unworthy  of  even  the 
straitest  of  us  all.  When  it  is  said  that  the  consis- 
tent life  of  the  Baptist  denomination  depends  upon 
close  communion,  the  only  possible  answer  is,  that 
the  Baptist  denomination  ought  to  die.-*'  If  this 
alleged  dependence  were  as  true  as  some  of  us  be- 
lieve it  false,  we  ought  to  mean  ourselves  every  time 
that  we  mention  "  cumberers  of  the  ground."  Could 
the  soul-liberty  for  which  Eoger  Williams  went  into 
exile,  have  gained  anything  of  either  strength  or 
consistency  from  close  communion  ?  Was  not  God 
on  its  side,  and  was  not  that  enough  ?  Witness  the 
Eepublic  to-day,  and  the  fleeing  shadow  of  Union 
with  the  State  which  has  darkened  the  church  so 
long.  Must  we  separate  ourselves  from  our  kindred 
in  Christ  at  His  table,  to  hold  consistently  that  our 
children  should  be  free  to  choose  their  spiritual 
homes  ?     Must  we  withdraw  from  our  brethren  at 

*  Appendix  (6). 


92        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

our  holiest  trysting,  before  we  can  be  consistent  in 
receiving  and  administering  water  baptism  as  we  be- 
lieve that  Christ  appointed  it  ?  If  we  grant  that 
nothing  but  dipping  is  baptism,  then  there  is  but 
one  belief^  the  consistent  holding  of  which  seems  to 
depend  on  close  communion  ;  viz.,  that  water  bap- 
tism, by  divine  command,  should  invariably  precede 
the  supper.  This,  however,  is  the  question  at  issue. 
But  even  granting  this  prerequisite,  we  must  dispose 
of  this  other  question,  '^  Am  I  responsible  for  the  ob- 
servance of  this  essential  by  anybody  but  myself  ?  " 

It  is  sometimes  urged  that  we  protest  against 
pedobaptism  and  sprinkling  by  close  communion. 
But  to  do  this  by  deliberate  intent  is  to  invest  the 
Lord's  supper  loith  a  foreign  and  schismatical 
meaning.  Who  are  we  that  we  should  make  His 
body,  which  is  broken  for  us,  and  His  blood,  which  is 
shed  for  many,  a  protest  at  all,  except  against  our 
sins  ?  But  to  do  this  in  the  face  of  the  divine  ten- 
derness, the  infinite  spirituality,  and  the  universal 
application,  of  His  instituting  words,  and  avowedly 
to  keep  the  denomination  together,  is  both  to  be 
guilty  of  sacrilege,  and  to  glory  in  our  shame. 

I  am  not  making  a  plea  for  the  Lord's  supper  in 
opposition,  or  in  preference,  to  Christian  baptism,  but 
a  protest  against  destroying  or  impairing  the  divine 


APOSTOLIC   EXAMPLE.  93 

idea  of  communion,  for  mere  denominational  rea- 
sons, or  for  any  whatsoever.  It  is  not  fair  to  repre- 
sent the  open  communionists  as  making  much  of  the 
Lord's  supper  and  little  of  baptism  ;  for,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  real  question  at  issue,  involves  relation  and 
dependence,  not  comparison  ;  and  therefore  w^e 
should  not  consider  whether  the  communion  is  more 
sacred,  and  of  higher  obligation,  than  baptism,  but 
whether  Christ,  wdio  instituted  them  both,  so  con- 
nected the  sujDper  with  Christian  baptism,  that  none 
can  partake  of  the  former  who  have  not  received  the 
latter  ;  and  whether  Ave  have  anything  more  to  do 
with  the  supposed  outward  qualification  than  to 
make  it  our  own.  If  Christ's  teaching  and  apostolic 
example  clashed,  as  did  Peter's  conduct  and  Paul's, 
we  would  be  bound  to  put  the  servant  aside,  and  fol- 
low the  Master.  But  this  is  not  the  case  with  re- 
gard to  communion.  Christ  not  only  gave  no  hint 
of  water  baptism  as  any  sort  of  a  qualification  for 
His  supper,  but  handed  the  elements  to  the  twelve, 
who,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  had  not  received 
Christian  baptism  ;  and  we  have,  as  is  conceded,  no 
positive  precept  on  the  subject  from  the  Apostles. 
To  hold  that  communion  naturally  follows  baptism 
is  one  thing,  and  to  separate  ourselves  from  fellow- 
members  in  the  body  of  Christ  at  His  table,  who  be- 


94       CLOSE    COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

lieve  in  the  same  order,  but  differ  from  its  about  the 
form  of  baptism,  is  another,  and  a  non  sequitur. 

I  think  that  I  have  shown  that  apostolic  example 
neither  leads  us  to  this  division,  nor  establishes  com- 
munion after  baptism  as  the  necessary,  the  invari- 
able, and  the  God-given  order. 


WATER  BAPTISM  AND  SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  95 


WATER    BAPTISM    AND     SPIEIT    BAPTISM  DIS- 
TINGUISHED. 

As  the  form  of  water  baptism  has  been  discussed 
for  centuries  in  conversations,  sermons,  and  volumes, 
which  in  bulk  would  make  millions  of  Gospels,  it 
cannot  but  be  that  the  subject  seems  of  far  greater 
importance  to  many  minds  than  it  really  is.  This 
result  appears  inevitable,  when  we  consider  how  hard 
it  has  always  been  to  keep  from  losing  the  substance 
in  the  form,  and  to  grasp  the  substance  through  the 
form.  The  over-estimation  of  water  baptism  shows 
itself  in  the  application  of  many  passages  of  the  Scrip- 
tures to  the  washing  of  the  ordinance,  instead  of  the 
washing  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  an  independent  ac- 
tion. Hence,  as  an  effect  of  this  misapplication  of 
Scripture,  and  of  this  misconnection  of  the  outward 
with  the  inward,  we  have  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  and,  I  think,  in  part,  at  least,  the  prac- 
tice of  close  communion. 

Without  entering  into  the  question  of  its  nature, 
its  design,  and  its  disappearance,  I  propose  to  show 
that  "  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  "  was  neither  de- 


96        CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

pendent  upon  water  baptism,  nor  invariably  connect- 
ed with  it.  We  have  noticed  ah^eady  that  the  Bap- 
tist, in  proof  of  the  infinite  superiority  of  his  Succes- 
sor, declared  that  He  would  baptize  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Christ's  prerogative  was  not  in  addition  to 
John's,  as  he  stated  it,  but  in  contrast;  foi*  he  did 
not  say,  "  Pie  shall  baptize  you  with  water  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  but  "/indeed  have  baptized  you  with 
tvater,  but  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Ilohj 
GJiostr^ 

On  the  last,  the  great  day  of  the  feast,  after  the 
libation,  which  typilied  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  times  of  the  Messiah,  had  been  poured  from  the 
golden  vessel  by  the  priest,  who  had  ascended  the 
altar,  Jesus  stood  and  cried,  "  He  that  helievetli  on 
?ne,  as  the  Scripture  has  said,  out  of  his  belly  shall 
flow  rivers  of  living  water/'^  The  Evangelist  adds, 
in  explanation,  that  "  this  spake  Pie  of  the  Spirit 
which  they  that  believed  on  Him  should  receive."  In 
that  supplementary  passage,  which  closes  Mark's 
Gospel,  we  find  that  after  saying  "  He  that  bclieveth, 
and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,"  Jesus  added,  "  These . 
signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe;  in  my  name 
shall  they  cast  out  devils  ;  they  shall  speah  lolth 
neiv  tongues;  they  shall  take  up  serpents  ;  and  if 

iMark  i.,  8.     ^john  vii.,  38,  39. 


WATER  BAPTISM  AND  SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  97 

tliey  drink  any  deadly  thing  it  shall  not  hurt  tliem  ; 
and  they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick  and  they  shall 
recover.'"'  No  water  baptism  is  recorded  of  any  of 
those  who  saw  the  vision  of  cloven  tongues,  which 
looked  like  fire,  and  who  spoke  in  strange  languages 
"  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance  ;'^^  and,  as  we 
have  learned,  they  could  not  possibly  have  received 
Christian  baptism.  Under  the  preaching  of  Philip, 
the  Samaritans  believed,  and  were  baptized,  but  did 
not  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  till  Peter  and  John,  who 
went  to  them  from  Jerusalem,  prayed  for  them,  and 
laid  their  hands  upon  them.^  Of  course  the  theolo- 
gians, who  have  made  up  their  minds  that  this  mirac- 
ulous endowment  was  intimately  connected  with 
water  baptism,  try  hard  to  show  that  there  was 
something  peculiar  in  this  case,  which  necessitated 
an  exceptional  order ;  but  scarcely,  I  think,  with  as 
much  success  as  effort,  or  ingenuity.  It  is  curious  to 
see  how  extremes  meet  in  the  common  belief  that 
this  spiritual  power  was  inseparably  connected  with 
an  outward  sign  and  medium  ;  for  here  we  find 
Luther  and  Calvin  standing  with  the  Papists,  the 
Anglicans,  and  some  who  call  themselves  Baptists. 
Luke's  history  of  the  Apostles  is  not  a  record  of 
rules,  but  of  general  development,  and  of  individual^ 
3 Acts  ii.,  3,  4.     4^cts  viii.,  12-17. 


98        CLOSE  COMMUNION^  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION? 

and  often  independentj  actions.  Far  be  it  from  me 
to  deny  that  th^y  are  divinely  recorded  for  our  spir- 
itual instruction,  but  not,  I  believe,  in  the  literal,  ser- 
vile way  in  which  some  of  us  use  them.  As  Peter 
was  preaching  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  "  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  all  them  lohich  heard  the  word;  and 
they  of  the  circumcision  which  believed  were  aston- 
ished, because  that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was  poured 
out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."^  These  believing 
Jews  thought  that  circumcision,  as  a  heaven-appoint- 
ed sign,  and  condition,  of  connection  with  their  nation 
and  their  religion,  was  thus  connected  with  the 
greater  blessings  of  Messiah's  reign.  Considering 
the  past  of  this  peculiar  people,  that  solitariness  ol 
glory  which  crowned  them  in  their  worship  of  the 
one  and  only  God  in  the  midst  of  an  idolatrous 
world,  it  was  neither  so  strange,  not  so  narrow,  for 
them  to  think  as  they  did,  as  for  Christians  in  these 
days  to  insist  that  God's  influence  on  the  soul  of 
man,  is  either  invariably  or  exclusively  exercised 
through  certain  outward  signs.  It  is  not  the  Lord 
who  has  taught  us  that  the  Spirit  flows  either  always, 
or  only,  in  such  channels,  or  is  so  easily  traced,  as  this  ; 
for  it  was  He  that  said  to  Nicodcmus  by  night, 
*'  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth  (God  moves  as 

5 Acts  X.,  41-46. 


WATER  BAPTISM  AND  SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  99 

He  pleases),  and  tJioic  hear  est  the  sound  thereof ^  hut 
canst  not  tell  lohence  it  cometh^  nor  lohither  it  goeth. 
So  is  every  one  that  is  horn  of  the  Sjnrit.^'"^  This 
utterance,  and  the  other,  that  "these  signs  shall 
follow  them  that  believe,"  were  confirmed  when  the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  those  Gentiles,  who  had  neither 
been  circumcised  with  the  knife,  not  baptized  in 
water,  as  He  fell  on  the  Apostles  at  the  heginningJ 
Thus  we  see  that  water  baptism  was  not  a  condition 
of  receiving  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Nor  when 
it  followed  the  imposition  of  hands,  as  was  some- 
times the  case,  were  the  hands  always  apostolical,  as 
some,  who  are  anxious  for  a  show  of  Succession,  have 
labored  to  prove  ;  for  Ananias,  who  was  neiiher  an 
Apostle,  nor,  like  Philip,  one  of  the  seven,  put  his 
hands  on  the  converted  persecutor,  and  said  to  him, 
"  Brother  Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus,  that  appeared 
unto  thee  in  the  way  as  thou  earnest,  hath  sent  me, 
that  thou  mightest  receive  thy  sight,  and  he  filled  with 
the  Eoly  Ghost. "^  The  context  leaves  it  doubtful, 
and  it  is  nowhere  stated  in  his  writings,  whether  it 
was  then,  when  "  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had 
been  scales,"  and  previous  to  his  baptism,  or  after- 
wards, that  Paul  began  to  speak  with  tongues  ;  but 
he  did  tell  the  Corinthians  that  he  spoke  with 
ejohn  iii.,  8.     'Act  xi.,  15.     ^Acts  ix.,  17. 


100     CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

tongues  more  than  they  all.9  It  was  neither  in  con- 
nection with  water  baptism,  nor  with  the  imposition 
of  hands,  that  in  that  overwhelming  influence  from 
heaven  the  gift  of  tongues  was  conferred  upon  the 
disciples,  including  the  Apostles,  who  were  all  with 
one  accord  in  one  place  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  and 
the  same  independence  of  any  accompanying  symbol, 
or  visible  channel,  stands  out  in  the  clearest  possible 
iight  in  the  case  of  Cornelius,  his  kinsmen,  and 
friends.  It  seems  to  me  that  a  careful,  candid  ex- 
amination of  all  the  communications  of  the  Spirit, 
miraculously  attested,  must  end  in  the  firm  convic- 
tion that  they  had  no  outward  medium  whatever^ 
which  loas  sole  and  indispensable, 

I  now  propose  to  show  that  water  baptism,  and 
Spirit  baptism,  without  these  signs,  as  with  them, 
are  clearly  distinguished  from  each  other,  and  are 
represented  as  independent  of  each  other,  in  the 
word  of  God. 

How  often  it  is  when  a  great  spiritual  fact  is 
burning  for  expression,  under  an  allusion  to  some- 
thing outward,  that  this,  which  is  merely  incidental 
and  far  less  than  secondary,  makes  more  impression, 
awakens  more  thought,  and  incites  to  more  effort, 
than  that  which  has  kindled  and  fed  the  inward  fire  I 
n  Cor.  xiv.,  18. 


"WATER  BAPTISM  AND  SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  101 

But  as  it  has  been,  it  is  to  be  feared  it  will  always 
be,  that  the  outward  and  temporal  will  be  exalted  at 
the  expense  of  the  inward  and  eternal.  The  Cor- 
inthians baptized  the  living  for  the  dead,  as  if  the 
departed  were  not  safe  with  God,  and  so  did  they 
glory  in  men,  that  that  most  spiritual  Apostle,  who 
had  heard  in  the  third  heaven  what  it  was  unlawful 
to  utter,  was  forced  into  this  scathing  rebuke  of  their 
idolatry  :  "  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of 
you,  •••■  ■••'  ■'••"  lest  any  should  say  that  I  had  baptized 
in  my  own  name."^^  And  so  in  our  day  there  are 
many  who  defend  their  existence  as  a  denomination 
on  the  ground  that  they  are  correcting  an  error  in 
form,  or  protesting  against  it,  forgetful  surely  how 
grateful  Paul  was  for  infinitely  better  work  when  he 
declared  that  Christ  had  sent  him  not  to  baptize, 

BUT  TO  PREACH  THE  GoSPEL.^^ 

Believing  the  good  news  of  redeeming  love  involv- 
ed, and  still  involves,  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  In 
applying  Christianity  to  social  life,  husbands  are  ex- 
horted by  Paul  to  love  their  wives,  even  as  Christ 
also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  Himself  for  it,  that 
He  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  tJie  icasJiing 
of  water  (or,  literally,  in  the  font  of  water)  by,  or  in, 
THE  woRD.^2     There  is  doubtless  an  allusion  to  water 

loCor.  i.,  14,  15.     » iVerse  17.     ^'^E^h.  v.,  25,  26. 


102       CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

baptism,  but  who  can  say  that  the  font  of  water  does 
not  stand  for  Him  who  holds  the  sanctifying  and 
cleansing  power  ?  "  Sanctify  them  through  Thy 
truth/'  was  Christ's  prayer  for  His  people, — "  Thy 
word  is  truth/'i^  John  called  Him  the  Word,  and 
He  promised  to  send  the  Comforter  ;  "  for,"  said 
He,  ''if  I  depart,  I  will  send  Him  unto  jom  ; "  and 
again,  "  He  shall  glorify  me,  for  He  shall  receive 
of  mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto  you.  All  things 
that  the  Father  hath  are  mine  ;  therefore  said  I  that 
He  shall  take  of  mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto 
you."^^  "  Thus,"  says  Alford, — although  a  believer 
in  baptismal  regeneration, — "  the  word  preached  and 
received,  is  the  conditional  element  of  purification — 
the  real  loater  of  spiritual  baptism  ;  that  wherein 
and  whereby  alone  the  efficacy  of  baptism  is  convey- 
ed ;  that  wherein  and  whereby  we  are  regenerated, 
the  process  of  sanctification  being  subsequent  and 
gradual." 

So  must  we  understand  the  Apostle,  when,  in 
showing  the  nature  of  salvation  to  Titus,  he  writes, 
"  Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done, 
but  according  to  His  mercy  He  saved  us,  by  the 
washing  {pid  Xovzpov,  by  the  font)  of  regeneration, 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  He  shed  on 

1 3  Jobn  xvii.,  17.     ^ «  John  xvi.,  7,  14,  15. 


WATER  BAPTISM  AND  SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  103 

lis  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ,  our  Saviour ^^^ 
To  the  same  effect  is  Paul's  contrast  of  the  present 
with  the  past  of  the  Corinthians  :  "  And  such  were 
some  of  you  ;  but  ye  are  tuashed,  but  ye  are  sancti- 
fied, but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  by  (m)  the  Spirit  of  our  God."'^^ 

If  we  consider  the  case  of  a  believer  who  has  not 
been  buried  in  water,  and  raised  out  of  it,  but  who 
has  been  separated  from  sin  as  his  tyrant,  and  lifted 
into  newness  of  life,  I  think  we  shall  see  that  he  is 
"  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  wherein  also  he  is 
risen  with  Him,  through  the  faith  of  the  Ojjeration  of 
God,  who  hath  raised  Him  from  the  dead/'^' 

The  Pedobaptist  believer,  or  rather  his  parents, 
may  have  mistaken  both  the  subject  and  mode  of 
water  baptism,  and  yet  be  none  the  less  baptized  in 
the  Spirit,  and  hence  really,  because  divinely  and 
eternally,  baptized.  The  baptism  "  unto  Moses  in 
the  cloud  and  in  the  sea  "  is  fulfilled  in  our  baptism 
into  one  body  by  one  Spirit  unto  Christ,  who  leads 
us  through  the  real  wilderness  to  the  real  Canaan  ; 
and,  like  the  Israelites,  we  all  eat  the  same  spiritual 
meat,  and  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink,  for  we 
drink  of  that  spiritual  Eock  that  follows  us,  and 
that  Rock  is  Christ.^^ 

15  Titus  iii.,  5,  6.     ^^1  Cor.  vi.,  11.     i'  Cq],  h^  12,  Rom.  vi.,  4. 
» 8  1  Cor.  X.,  2,  3,  4. 


104      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

It  was  an  inspired  teacher  who  taught  that  the 
outward  sign  might  exist  without  the  inward  grace, 
and  also  that  the  inward  grace  gave  the  only  good 
title  to  the  name  which  was  claimed  on  account  of 
the  outward  sign  :  "  For  he  is  not  a  Jew  which  is 
one  outivardly,  neither  is  that  circumcision  which  is 
outward  in  the  flesh  ;  but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one 
inwardly,  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the 
sjjirit,  and  not  in  the  letter,  whose  praise  is  not  of 
men,  but  of  God.''^^ 

Paul  applied  this  principle  to  the  Philipians  when 
he  wrote  to  them  thus,  although  many  of  them  were 
uncircumcised  "  in  the  letter  : ''  "For  we  are  the  cir- 
cumcision which  worship  God  in  the  spirit,  and  re- 
joice in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  in  the 
flesh."'^^  To  the  Colossians  also  his  words  were  no 
less  dubious  :  "  Ye  are  complete  in  Him,  which  is 
the  Head  of  all  principality  and  power  ;  in  luhom 
also  ye  are  circumcised  loith  the  circumcision  made 
ivithout  hands  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of 
the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ."-^  When  he 
wished  to  show  the  Fountain  of  that  union  which 
makes  believers  "  one  body  in  Christ,  and  every  one 
members  one  of  another,"-^  he  represented  the  Spirit 

1 9  Rom.  ii.,  28,  29.    2  0  phii.  m^  3.    2  1  Col.  ii.,  10,  11.    22  Rom. 
xii.,  5. 


"WATEE  BAPTISM  AND  SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  105 

as  the  element  in  whicli  Christians  were  buried ;  "  for/' 
said  he,  "in  one  Spirit  {Iv  kvi  nvEvMan)  were  we  all 
baj)tized  {afjanTi6Qjj).iEy)  into  one  body,  '•'  *  *  and 
were  all  made  to  drink  {enoTieBrjuEv)  one  spirit/'^^ 
How  complete  the  statement !  He  is  describing  a 
spiritual  operation  by  a  figure  which  takes  the  sub- 
ject into  the  element,  but  for  fear  that  this  may  seem 
merely  external,  he  adds  a  second,  which  takes  the 
element  into  the  subject.  Any  allusion  to  the  cup 
in  the  Lord's  supper  is  obviated  by  the  tense  of  the 
verb  to  drink,  and  also  by  the  fact  that  it  is  not  the 
Holy  Ghost,  but  the  blood  of  Christ,  that  is  repre- 
sented by  the  wine  of  the  communion.  Then,  again, 
the  observance  of  the  Lord's  supper  by  the  same 
23ersons  is  frequent,  because  it  represents,  and  is, 
when  properly  observed,  a  habitual  process — liv- 
ing spiritually  on  Christ — but  water  baptism  sym- 
holizes  something  already  done,  and  is  not  to  he  re- 
peated.  This  is  a  real  distinction,  and  should  not 
be  overlooked  in  treating  of  the  two  ordinances. 

Showing  how  clearly  Spirit  baptism  was  distin- 
guished from  water  baptism,  and  how  the  latter  in 
value  and  importance  was  not  to  be  named  beside 
the  former,  neither  Luke,  nor  John,  who  was  cer- 
tainly the  most  spiritual  of  the  four,  mentions  it  as 

S3  1  Cor.  xii.,  13. 


106       CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

enjoined  by  the  Saviour  in  the  apostolical  commis- 
sion, which  was  delivered  after  the  resurrection  (and 
in  which  alone  He  ever  enjoined  it)  ;  but  both  make 
ample  records  of  the  promise  of  the  inestimable  bless- 
ing which  the  ordinance  symbolizes.-  It  must  be 
known  to  many  of  my  readers  that  the  last  eleven 
verses  of  Mark's  Gospel  are  regarded  by  many  of  the 
ablest  and  devoutest  of  orthodox  Biblical  scholars  as 
an  addition  from  another  and  a  later  hand.  If  this 
be  so,  then  of  the  four  evangelists  Matthew  alone  pre- 
sents water  baptism  as  a  commandment  of  Christ  ; 
but  it  does  not  appear  that  the  formula  given  in  this 
Gospel  was  adopted  by  the  Apostles,  or  their  con- 
temporaries. I  do  not  state  these  facts  to  weaken 
the  obligation  of  water  baptism,  but  merely  to  shed 
light  from  the  Scriptures  on  its  relative  importance. 
It  appears  that  the  Corinthians  craved  the  gift  of 
tongU'^'S  as  a  sign  of  superior  spiritual  power,  but 
Paul,  who  was  pre-eminent  in  this  miraculous  endow- 
ment, told  them  that  he  would  rather  speak  five 
words  in  the  church  with  his  understanding,  that  by 
his  voice  he  might  teach  others  also,  than  ten  thou- 
sand words  in  an  unknoAvn  tongue. ^^  He  had  in- 
structed them  that  no  man  could  say  that  Jesus  Avas 
the  Lord  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  though 

2  4  1  Cor.  xiv.,  19. 


"WATER  BAPTISM  AND  SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  107 

there  were  diversities  of  gifts,  there  was  but  one 
Spirit. 2^  Then^  in  revelation  of  the  "  more  excellent 
way,"  he  rises  suddenly  and  swiftly,  like  a  lark  to  the 
rising  sun,  into  that  eulogy  of  love,  in  which  we 
seem  to  hear  the  very  music  of  heaven.  More  em- 
phatic, if  not  so  melodious  and  so  moving,  is  John's 
teachings  of  the  same  truth  :  "  Beloved,  let  us  love 
one  another  ;  for  love  is  of  God,  and  every  one  that 
loveth  is  born  of  God.  '^  ''•*  •''  '^  God  is  love.  If  we 
love  one  another,  God  diuelletli  in  us,  and  His  love 
is  perfected  in  us.  Hereby  know  we  that  we  dioell 
in  Him,  and  He  in  us,  because  He  hath  given  us  of 
His  Spirit."^^  It  is  then  in  the  divine  love  that  we 
are  baptized  into  one  body,  and  it  is  this  which  is 
the  water  of  life,  of  which  we  drink,  and  live  forever. 
2  5  1  Cor.  xii.,  3,  4.     2  6 1  john  iv.,  7,  8,  12,  13. 


108      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 


INTERCOMMUNION 

The  history  of  the  past,  and  our  knowledge  of  the 
human  mind,  forbid  us  to  cherish  the  hope  that 
there  will  ever  be  uniformity  of  belief  and  practice 
among  Christians.  They  have  diifered,  they  do 
diifer,  and  they  will  differ,  on  many  matters  of  or- 
ganization, ordinance,  and  doctrine.  Some  of  us 
think,  that,  all  things  considered,  it  is  better  so  ;  that 
truth  being  many-sided,  and  not  fully  seen  by  any 
one  pair  of  eyes,  it  is  well  that  special  prominence  is 
given  to  this  feature  by  some,  and  to  that  by  others. 
Even  where  we  think  we  find  grave  errors,  we  may 
discover  by  further  search,  if  our  hearts  are  right, 
that  some  phase  of  truth,  overlooked,  or  more  than 
half  concealed  elsewhere,  is  there  brought  out  into 
bold  relief  And  so  a  grander  revelation,  and  a  more 
potential  influence,  are  secured  for  truth  in  the  world. 

He  is  to  be  pitied  who  believes  that  it  is  only  his 
sect  which  has  a  Christian  mission  to  fulfil,  and 
therefore  a  right  to  live  ;  for  he  must  feel  that  the 
Redeemer's  kingdom  is  in  a  sad  plight  ;  yes,  and 
hopeles.^,  unless  he  is  so  young  or  so  foolish  as  to 


INTERCOMMUNION.  109 

fancy  fbat  lie  can  either  reason,  coax,  or  terrify  man- 
kind into  his  way  of  thinking.  Whether  the  Pope 
believes  that  this  is  possible,  or  simply  that  it  is  his 
duty  to  persist  in  the  attempt,  he  has  recently  given 
another  illustration  of  this  doubtless  pious  folly. 
Like  a  great  many  Protestants,  of  whom  he  should 
logically  be  the  "  one  pastor,"  he  confounds  Chris- 
tian union  with  ecclesiastical  unity — two  things 
which  are  entirely  distinct,  and  which  indeed  could 
scarcely  exist  together.  "  The  church  is  one,"  says 
the  Pope.  Granted.  "  But  what  one  is  it  ?  "  he 
continues,  "  for  the  self-styled  churches  are  many." 
''  It  is  the  Holy  Catholic  church,"  he  replies,  mean- 
ing, of  course,  his  own,  while  the  hierarchy,  and  the 
millions  whom  it  guides,  respond,  "  It  is,  and  amen." 
It  is  the  Baptist  church,  cries  a  Baptist,  and  is 
sustained  by  quite  a  general  response  from  his  breth- 
ren. It  is  the  Episcopal  church,  says  the  High 
Churchman  {sotto  voce,  we,  and  the  Catholics),  cast- 
ing a  look  of  filial  longing  on  the  grand  proportions  of 
the  holy  mother  of  Kome.  Now,  who  is  to  decide 
between  these  three  claimants  and  all  the  others, 
who  cla'm,  at  least,  to  be  churches  of  Christ  ? 
The  Bible  ?  No  ;  for  it  is  on  this  that  they  disa- 
gree. It  has  no  voice  of  its  own  except  to  the  indi- 
vidual soul.     If  he  speaks  for  it,  its  voice  is  lost,  or 


110      CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION? 

rather  blended,  in  his.  Its  meaning  may  be  in  his 
words,  and  it  may  not ;  and  it  is  likely  to  lose  vol- 
ume, or  take  coloring,  in  passing  through  the  medi- 
um. He  is  interpreter,  and  it,  in  its  silence,  still 
lies  open  for  interpretation.  What  follows  ?  Either 
the  Catholic  church,  in  the  papal  sense,  as  an  infal- 
lible interpreter,  with  ecclesiastical  unity  ;  or  the 
exercise  of  private  interpretation,  with  honest,  earnest, 
outspoken,  and  manifold  differences.  He  knows  lit- 
tle of  God's  truth,  and  does  not  dream  how  much 
of  it  we  have  yet  to  learn,  who  fears  this  ordeal  on  its 
account ;  and  he  ought  to  hide  himself,  and  be  at  rest, 
in  the  church  of  Rome.  Every  interpretation  should 
stand  on  its  own  merits  ;  and  nothing  should  be  re- 
jected simply  because  it  is  "  heterodox  " — the  other, 
the  contrary,  the  minority  opinion.  All  we  who  are 
brethren  should  recognize,  respect,  and  hear,  the 
teachers  who  are  raised  up  among  us  by  our  One 
Master,  but  we  should  examine  their  teaching,  each 
for  himself  "  Quench  not  the  Spirit,  despise  not 
prophesying  ;  prove  all  things,  hold  fast  that  which 
is  good.'^^  This  was  no  more  the  duty  and  the  priv- 
ilege of  the  Thessalonians  than  it  is  ours,  who  have 
now  a  more  complete  and  accessible  standard,  as 
well  as  the  light  which  shines  from  eighteen  centu- 

1  1  Tliess.  v.,  19-21. 


INTERCOMMUNION.  Ill 

ries  of  developing    Christianity,  and  the  help  of  the 
ever-present  Christ  if  we  but  desire  it. 

Christendom  will  neither  be  Roman  Catholic, 
Episcopal,  nor  Baptist.  Differences  will  increase 
with  thought  and  intelligence,  but  so  will  Christian 
union.  In  the  changing  of  opinions,  differences: 
are  multiplying  now,  but  there  never  was  a  time 
when  the  search  for  the  source  of  Christian  union 
was  more  ardent,  or  the  consciousness  of  it  deeper, 
and  more  general.  How  do  the  old  school  and  the 
new  school  agree  ?  Not  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment, for  so  much  is  involved  in  this  single  question, 
that,  if  the  Christian  heart  did  not  enter  in  at  once 
as  a  criterion  and  a  harmonizer,  we  might  think  that 
the  two  parties  worshipped  two  different  Gods. 
Their  real  union  does  not  lie  in  their  consolidation  ; 
for  if  they  agree  to  differ,  their  consolidation  means 
simply  mutual  toleration  ;  and  if  they  still  differ  and 
contend,  their  consolidation  is  but  an  ill-fitting  cloak 
for  their  disagreement  to  wear.  How  then  are  the 
old  and  the  new  school  one  ?  In  loving  the  livins: 
Christ,  and  in  living  by  the  loving  Christ.  Thus, 
thus  only,  and  thus  always,  they  are  one.  They 
may  have  different  creeds,  or  conflicting  interpreta- 
tions of  the  same  creed,  they  may  have  different  col- 
leges, and   they  may  have   different   churches,  but 


112      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

still  in  loving  the  living  Christ,  and  in  living  by  the 
loving  Christ,  they  have  the  same  spirit,  and  the 
same  life,  they  are  of  the  same  family,  and  they  have 
the  same  Father,  and  the  Heavenly  Jerusalem  is  the 
home  and  the  mother  of  them  all.  Thus  for  Christ- 
ians, notwithstanding  their  differences— for  the  Cath- 
olic and  the  Quaker,  the  Baptist  and  the  Anglican, 
for  Doctor  Bushnell  and  for  Doctor  Hodge,  for  you 
and  for  me,  the  prayer  of  Jesus  for  us  all  has  its 
answer  from  God  :  "  That  they  all  maybe  one  ;  as 
Thou,  Father,  art  in  Me,  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they 
also  may  be  one  in  us."  It  has  never  been  unan- 
swered since  it  was  offered,  for  under  the  noise  and 
confusion  of  scholastic  and  sectarian  strife,  heaven 
has  always  been  conscious  of  the  deep  dumb  music 
of  love  to  God  in  the  Christian's  heart,  and  to  ''  his 
brother  also."^  Sweeter  to  the  risen  Christ  than 
the  hallelujahs  of  the  seraphim  has  been  this  respon- 
sive throb  to  His  own  heart  in  the  heart  of  His  bride, 
His  mystical  body.  His  indivisible  church. 

But  has  He  left  us  no  sign,  and  no  visible  means, 
of  this  union  to  each  other,  and  to  Him  ?  Why  did 
He  institute  the  communion  before  He  built  His 
church  on  Peter,  and  before  he  revived  to  be  Himself 
its  Chief  Corner-stone  .?  Why  do  we  read  the 
2  1  John  iv.,  21. 


INTERCOMMUNION,  113 

sacred  story  of  the  last  supper  before  the  account  of 
the  first  Christian  church  ?  Because,  it  seems  to 
me,  the  Lord  intended  to  keep  the  communion  as 
His  memorial,  as  the  special  sign  and  a  potent  means 
of  our  life  by  Him,  and  of  our  union  with  each  other, 
free  from  all  ecclesiastical  and  doctrinal  differences — 
differences  which  began  with  the  Apostles  and  the 
church  at  Jerusalem,  and  continue  to  this  day,  with 
no  prospect  of  reconcilement — except  in  Christian 
liberty  and  in  Christian  love. 

Suppose  that  the  Lord,  foreseeing  the  develop- 
ment of  His  kingdom  as  it  has  developed,  and  is  de- 
veloping, had  instituted  an  ordinance  to  portray  Him- 
self as  the  source  of  life,  and  His  disciples  as  united 
to  each  other  in  Him,  what  more  appropriate  formula 
could  He  employ  than  that  which  we  repeat  from 
His  lips  so  often  at  His  table  ?  There  is  no  hint  of 
indorsing  difference,  for  no  difference  is  hinted,  and 
no  suggestion  that  previous  water  baptism  is  required, 
for  water  baptism  as  a  Christian  rite  had  not  been 
commanded  ;  but  simply,  of  the  bread,  "  This  is  my 
body  which  is  broken  for  you  :  this  do  in  remem- 
brance of  Me  ; "  and  of  the  wine,  ^'  This  cup  is  the 
new  testament  in  my  blood  :  this  do,  as  oft  as  ye 
drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  Me/'^    There  is  no  thins: 

8  1  Cor.  xi.,  23-26. 


114 


here  to  make  the  Baptist  missionary  separate  himself 
in  the  presence  of  both  converted  and  unbelieving 
heathen  from  his  brethren  in  the  Christian  ministry, 
who  have  left  home  in  the  same  S]3irit,  and  are 
spending  themselves  for  the  same  Saviour,  and  the 
same  souls.  Why  then  should  this  scandal  remain  ? 
How  contradictory  it  must  seem  to  idolaters  that 
though  their  strange  teachers  believe  in  one  Saviour, 
by  whose  death  they  are  reconciled  to  God,  and  by 
whose  life  they  are  saved  from  sin,  they  yet  refuse  to 
partake  of  His  body,  which  was  broken  for  them, 
and  of  His  blood,  which  was  shed  for  their  pardon, 
together  !  "  Can  each  believe  that  the  same  Christ 
died  for  the  other,  and  that  they  all  are  united  in 
living  by  Him  ?  "  is  the  almost  inevitable  inquiry 
which  it  is  hard  to  answer  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
inquirer.  And  if  we  had  as  good  eyes  as  the 
heathen,  would  it  not  seem  most  strange  and  sad 
that  members  of  churches  whose  ministers  exchange, 
who  mingle  together  in  meetings  for  prayer,  who  are 
heart  to  heart  and  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  the  Mas- 
ter's work,  separate  from  each  other  at  His  table, 
even  when  Providence  has  gathered  them  around  it 
together  ?  What  word  is  there  in  the  Bible  which 
makes  it  our  duty  to  prevent  Christian  parents  (as 
our  invitation  prevents  them)  from  showing  forth 


INTERCOMMUNION.  115 

in  our  churches,  with  their  children,  bora  again  in 
Christ,  "  His  death  until  He  come  ?  "  And  yet  Ave 
compel  the  Christian  father  to  go  away,  or  remain  as 
an  alien  spectator,  while  his  believing  child  partakes, 
may  be,  for  the  first  time  of  the  communion.  How 
repugnant  to  the  thought  of  their  union  in  nature, 
their  union  in  grace,  and  their  union  in  glory  !  A 
triple  schism  seems  more  than  lurking  in  this  awful 
division.  Verily,  we  ought  to  have  a  "■  thus  saith  the 
Lord  "  for  such  a  separation  as  this  ;  but  it  never 
was  uttered,  and  it  cannot  be  found. 

It  is  vain  to  put  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  and  the  exclusion  of  fellow-members  in  Christ 
from  the  communion,  on  the  same  ground  ;  for,  in  the 
absence  of  positive  precepts,  and  considering  the  cases 
on  their  own  merits,  we  see  propriety  beautifying 
the  one,  and  something  worse  than  impropriety 
distorting  the  other.  If  Christ  died  and  rose  again 
from  the  dead  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  should 
not  the  world  commemorate  His  resurrection  ? 
Does  not  nature  demand  a  rest  at  stated  intervals, 
and  a  chance  to  meditate  ?  Should  she  ever  forget  her 
Redeemer,  or  thrust  her  hand  into  the  old  dispensa- 
tion for  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  as  if  the  creation  of  the 
world  were  so  glorious  as  the  new  birth  of  the  soul  ? 
"Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat  or  in 


116      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION? 

drink,  or  in  resjoect  of  a  holiday,  or  of  the  new  moon, 
or  of  the  Sabbath  days,  luliicli  are  a  shadow  of  things 
to  coone.^''^  What  we  call  Sunday,  John  called  the 
Lord's  day,  and  it  was  was  held  sacred  to  Christian 
services  by  the  earliest  Christians.  But  as  there  is 
no  commandment  concerning  it,  and  as  all  our  time, 
with  all  our  heart,  belongs  to  Christ,  there  is  liberty 
in  its  observance.  "  One  man  esteemeth  one  day 
above  another  :  another  esteemeth  every  day  alike. 
Let  every  man  he  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind" 
Thus  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day  is  left  with 
the  individual  Christian,  and  safely  too,  though  some 
are  afraid.  It  is  safe  to  do  a  good  thing  without  a 
commandment,  especially  when  you  have  an  exam- 
ple, but  what  is  it,  without  either,  to  do  something 
which  of  itself  more  than  suggests  that  Christians 
are  not  "  one  bread  and  one  body,"  which,  in  con- 
nection with  this  very  ordinance,  they  are  most  sol- 
emnly declared  to  be  ?  Paul  teaches  that  this  union 
is  implied  and  effected  by  communing  together. 
What  then  is  the  implication  and  effect  of  exclu- 
sion ? 

Let  churches  of  different  names  celebrate  the  com- 
munion together,  not  as  a  pretence  that  they  do  not 
differ  in  many  respects,  but  to  illustrate fand  cherish 
4  Col.  ii.,  14-17. 


INTERCOMMUNION  117 

their  common  life  in  Christ,  and  their  fellowship 
with  each  other.  We  often  worship  together,  and 
feel  that  the  house  of  each  is  our  Father's  also  ;  we 
meet  in  mingled  sorrow,  love,  and  hope,  around  the 
sainted  dead  ;  let  us  mingle  in  communion.  God  is 
one  Father,  Christ  is  one  Saviour,  Christians  are  one 
family.  Heaven  is  one  home  ;  let  us  sit  together  un- 
der His  cross  by  the  way.  So  sat  the  twelve  all  un- 
wittingly on  the  night  of  His  betrayal  ;  but  to  us, 
now,  the  empty  sepulchre  and  the  angels  appear  with 
Calvary,  and  our  gathering  is  radiant  with  the  ten- 
derest  of  Heavens  glory  in  the  smile  of  the  Christ 
who  is  risen. 


APPENDIX. 

(1) 

"For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and 
drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  not  discerning  the  Lord's 
body"  (1  Cor.  xi.,  29). 

Alford  says  of  this  often  quoted  text,  which  is  so 
generally  and  so  horribly  misunderstood,  because  the 
context  is  not  sufficiently  considered  :  ^'  Eats  and 
drinks  judgment  to  himself ;  i.  e.,  brings  on  himself 
judgment  by  eating  and  drinking,  npi^a,  as  is  evid- 
ent by  verses  30-32  is  not  ^  damnation,'  (uaTaHpina) 
as  rendered  in  our  English  version,  a  mistranslation 
which  has  done  infinite  mischief." 

That  this  point  is  well  taken,  is  clear  from  the 
verses  cited,  for  we  find  in  them  that  they  who  had 
incurred  npifia  were  not  "  damned,"  but  weak,  sickly, 
and  asleep,  which  adjectives  some  commentators  un- 
derstand in  a  spiritual  sense,  and  others  in  the  literal, 
the  latter  seeing  an  allusion  to  a  prevailing  epidemic  ; 
also,  that  if  these  Corinthians  had  judged  themselves, 
118 


APPENDIX.  119 

they  would  not  have  been  judged  ;  and,  finally,  that 
when  they  were  judged,  they  were  chastened  of  the 
Lord,  "  that  they  should  not  he  condemned  with  the 
world" 

"  Not  discerning  the  Lord's  body,"  explains  their 
case.  Connected  as  the  Lord's  supper  was,  at  its 
institution,  with  the  passover,  the  Corinthians  made 
it  an  occasion  of  indecent  excess.  One  was  "  hun- 
gry," and  another  was  "  drunken."  They  therefore 
lost  the  spiritual  significance  and  benefit  of  the  cele- 
bration ;  and  disregarding  and  changing  its  sacred 
character,  they  were  "  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  Lord."  Not  so  with  the  penitent,  no  matter  how 
heinous  his  sins,  who  takes  Christ  as  his  Saviour,  and 
thus  humbly  and  trustfully,  or  even  timidly,  com- 
munes. It  was  for  such  that  Jesus  came,  and  it  is 
for  such  that  His  table  is  spread. 

(2.)  , 

"  They  devoted  themselves  to  the  careful  study  of 
the  text,  and  laid  down  rules  for  transcribing  it  with 
the  most  scrupulous  precision. 

"  A  saying  is  ascribed  to  Simon  the  Just  (B.  C. 
300-290),  the  last  of  the  succession  of  the  men  of 
the  Great  Synagogue,  which  embodies  the  principle 
on  which   they  acted,  and  enables  us  to  trace  the 


120      CLOSE    COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 


growth  of  their  system.  '  Our  fathers  have  taught 
us/  he  said,  '  three  things ' :  ^  to  be  cautious  in 
judging,  to  train  many  scholars,  and  to  set  a  fence 
about  the  law/  They  wished  to  make  the  law  of 
Moses  the  rule  of  life  for  the  whole  nation,  and  for 
individual  men.  But  it  lies  in  the  nature  of  every 
such  law,  of  every  informal,  half-systematic  code, 
that  it  raises  questions  which  it  does  not  solve.  The 
Jewish  teacher  could  recognize  no  principles  beyond 
the  precepts  of  the  law.  The  result  showed  that  in 
this  as  in  other  instances  the  idolatry  of  the  letter 
was  destructive  of  the  very  reverence  in  which  it  had 
originated.  Decisions  on  fresh  questions  were  ac- 
cumulated into  a  complex  system  of  casuistry.  The 
'  Words  of  the  Scribes '  now  used  as  a  technical 
phrase  for  these  decisions,  were  honored  above  the 
law.  It  was  a  greater  crime  to  offend  against  them 
than  the  law.  They  were  as  wine  while  the  precepts 
of  the  law  Avere  as  water.  The  first  step  was  taken 
toward  annulling  the  commandments  of  God  for  the 
sake  of  their  own  traditions.  The  casuistry  became 
at  once  subtle  and  prurient,  evading  the  plainest 
duties,  tampering  with  conscience  (Matt,  xv.,  1-6  ; 
xxiii.,  16-23).  The  right  relation  of  moral  and  cere- 
monial laws  was  not  only  forgotten,  but  absolutely 
inverted.     This  was  the  result  of  the  profound  reve- 


APPENDIX.  121 

rence  for  the  letter  wJiicJi  gave  no  heed  to  the  Word 
abiding  in  them. — John  v.,  38  (Dr.  Wm.  Smitli's 
New  Testament  History). 

(3.) 

The  Proselytes  of  Kighteousness,  known  ^  also 
as  Proselytes  of  the  Covenant,  were  perfect  Israelites. 
We  learn  from  the  Talmud,  that,  in  addition  to  cir- 
cumcision, baptism  was  also  required  to  complete 
their  admission  to  the  faith.  The  proselyte  was 
placed  in  a  tank,  or  pool,  up  to  his  neck  in  water. 
His  teachers,  who  now  acted  as  his  sponsors,  repeat- 
ed the  great  commandments  of  the  law.  These  he 
promised  and  vowed  to  keep,  and  then,  with  an  ac- 
companying benediction,  he  plunged  under  the  water. 
To  leave  one  hand-breadth  of  his  body  unsubmerged 
would  have  vitiated  the  whole  rite  (Ugolini,  22). 
The  Rabbis  carried  back  the  origin  of  the  baptism 
to  a  remote  antiquity,  finding  it  in  the  command  of 
Jacob  (Gen.  xxxv.,  2),  and  of  Moses  (Ex.  xix.,  10). 
The  Targum  of  the  Pseudo-Jonathan  inserts  the 
word  "  Thou  shalt  circumcise  and  ha2'>tize  "  in  Ex. 
xii.,  44.  Even  in  the  Ethiopic  version  of  Matt, 
xxiii.,  15,  we  find  "  compass  sea  and  land  to  baptize 
one  proselyte."     The  baptism  was  followed,  as  long 


122      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

as  the  temple  stood,  by  the  offering  or  Corban  (Dr. 
Wm.  Smith's  New  Testament  History). 

Perhaps  there  was  an  allusion  to  these  unrequired 
baptisms  in  the  question  which  Christ  put  to  the 
Pharisees :  "  The  baptism  of  John,  was  it  from 
Heaven  (as  he  claimed)  or  (like  your  baptism  of 
proselytes)  of  men  ?  " 

When  men  were  admitted  as  proselytes,  three  rites 
were  performed — circumcision,  baptism,  and  obla- 
tion ;  wheni^omeTi,  two — baptism  and  oblation.  The 
baptism  was  administered  in  the  day-time,  by  im- 
mersion of  the  whole  person  ;  and  while  standing 
in  the  water,  the  proselyte  was  instructed  in  certain 
portions  of  the  law.  The  whole  families  of  prose- 
lytes, including  infants,  were  baptized.  It  is  most 
probable  that  John's  baptism  in  outward  form  re- 
sembled that  of  proselytes.  Some  (De  Wette, 
Winer,  Paulus,  Meyer)  deny  that  the  proselyte 
baptism  was  in  use  before  the  time  of  John  ;  but 
the  contrary  has  been  generally  supposed  and  main- 
tained (cf.  Lightfoot,  Schottgen,  Buxtorf,  Wetstein, 
Bengel).  Indeed  the  baptism  or  lustration  of  a 
proselyte  xoould  follow  as  a  ^natter  of  course  by 
analogy  from  the  constant  legal  practice  of  lustra- 
tion after  all  uncleanesses  ;  and  it  is  difflcult  to  im- 
agine a  time  ivhen  it  looidd  7iot  be  in  use.     Besides 


APPENDIX.  123 

it  is  highly  improbable  that  the  Jews  should  have 
borrowed  the  rite  from  the  Christians,  or  the  Jewish 
hierarchy  from  John  (Alford's  Greek  Test.,  Matt, 
iii.  6). 

The  following  passage  shows  that  the  baptism  of 
John  did  not  seem  like  an  innovation  to  Josephus, 
who  was  contemporaneous  with  the  Apostles,  and 
thoroughly  versed  in  the  laws  and  customs  of  the 
Jews.  His  account  of  Herod's  reasons  for  killing  the 
Baptist  does  not  conflict  with  those  of  Matthew  and 
Mark.  The  historian  gives  none  but  political  causes, 
probably  because  he  knew,  and  could  think,  of  no 
other,  while  the  Evangelists,  who  were  more  inter- 
ested and  better  informed  in  the  facts  of  John's 
career,  are  more  specific  in  their  statement  : 

"Now,  some  of  the  Jews  thought  that  the  destruc- 
tion of  Herod's  army  (by  his  father-in-law,  Aretas, 
who  made  war  upon  him  on  account  of  his  desertion 
of  his  wife,  and  his  adultery  with  Herodias)  came 
from  God,  and  that  very  justly,  as  a  punishment  for 
what  he  did  against  John,  that  was  called  the  Bap- 
tist; for  Herod  slew  him,  who  was  a  good  man,  and 
commanded  the  Jews  to  exercise  virtue,  both  as 
to  righteousness  toward  one  another,  and  piety 
towards  God,  and  so  to  come  to  baptism  ;  for  that 
the  washing  would  be  acceptable  to  Him,  if  they 


124      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

made  use  of  it  not  in  order  to  the  putting  away  of 
some  sins,  but  for  the  purification  of  the  body  :  sup- 
posing still  that  the  soul  was  thoroughly  purified 
beforehand  by  righteousness.  Now  when  others 
came  in  crowds  about  him,  for  they  were  greatly 
moved  by  hearing  his  words,  Herod,  who  feared  lest 
the  great  influence  John  had  over  the  people  might 
put  it  into  his  power  and  inclination  to  raise  a  rebel- 
lion (for  they  seemed  ready  to  do  anything  he  should 
advise)  thought  it  best,  by  putting  him  to  death,  to 
prevent  any  mischief  he  might  cause,  and  not  to 
bring  himself  into  difficulties  by  sparing  a  man  who 
might  make  him  repent  of  it  when  it  should  be  too 
late.  Accordingly  he  was  sent  a  prisoner,  out  of 
Herod's  suspicious  temper,  to  Macherus,  the  castle  I 
before  mentioned,  and  was  there  put  to  death.  Now 
the  Jews  had  an  opinion  that  the  destruction  of  this 
army  was  sent  as  a  punishment  upon  Herod,  and  a 
mark  of  God's  displeasure  against  him"  (Antiquities 
of  the  Jews,  book  xviii.,  chap,  vi.,  sec.  2). 

(4.) 

And  it  came  to  pass,  that  while  ApoUos  was  at  Corinth, 
Paul  having  passed  through  the  upper  coasts  came  to  Eph- 
esus,  and  finding  certain  disciples,  he  said  unto  them,  Have 
ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed  ?     And  they 


APPENDIX.  125 

said  unto  him,  We  "have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there 
be  any  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Unto  what 
then  were  ye  baptized  ?  And  they  said,  Unto  John's  bap- 
tism. Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism 
of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people,  that  they  should  be- 
lieve on  Him  which  should  come  after  him,  that  is,  Christ 
Jesus.  When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  And  when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  up6n 
them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them;  and  they  spake  with 
tongues  and  prophesied.  And  all  the  men  were  about  twelve 
(Acts  xix.,  1 — 7). 

An  attempt,  as  bold  as  it  is  absurd,  has  been 
made  to  reverse  the  meaning  and  obviate  the  conse- 
quences of  this  account,  by  taking  the  words,  "  that 
is,  Christ  Jesus,''  from  Paul's  mouth,  and  putting 
them  into  John's,  and  then  applying  the  following 
verse,  "  When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  to  the  multitude 
that  John  baptized  in  Jordan,  and  therefore  to  the 
men  that  Paul  was  addressing. 

But  the  passages  which  I  have  quoted  in  the 
chapter  to  which  this  note  belongs,  show  beyond  a 
doubt  that  the  Baptist  did  not  know  that  Jesus  luas 
the  Lord  till  after  His  baptism,  and  the  promised  at- 
testation of  His  Messiahship  ;  and  that  these  took 
place  when  the  Baptist's  work  was  well  nigh  (if  not 
entirely)  finished. 


126      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

If  John  baptized  in  tlie  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
he  was  not  a  prophet  in  the  Old  Testament  sense, 
he  did  not  belong  to  the  Legal  Dispensation,  his 
baptism  was  not  unto  repentance,  and  he  had  not, 
any  more  than  the  Apostles,  disciples  of  his  own  ; 
for  they  knew  Jesus  as  a  man,  and  by  baptism  into 
His  natural  name,  with  His  Messianic  title  added, 
they  professed  their  faith  in  Him  as  the  historical 
personal  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  But  these  Gospels 
tell  us  that  this  was  the  very  thing  that  those 
men  questioned,  and  that  they  followed  another  mas- 
ter. 

If  the  Baptist  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  then  "  all  the  people  that  heard  him,  and  the 
publicans,  being  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  John," 
ought  to  have  considered  themselves,  and  to  have 
acted,  as  professed  Christians  in  the  presence  of  the 
Christ ;  but  they  did  not  seem  to  know  that  they 
were  His  baptized  disciples. 

It  is  confessed  that  it  was  for  fear  of  encourao^ino;  the 
"  Anabaptists  "  that  Calvin  so  grossly  misinterpreted 
this  unmistakeable  rebaptism  ;  and  it  is  to  be  feared 
that  some  of  us  have  followed  this  illustrious  leader 
with  an  equally  interested,  although  a  different,  de- 
sign ;  namely,  to  free  the  baptism  of  John  from  Paul's 
opinion  of  its  insufficiency,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 


APPENDIX.  127 

it,  and  it  only,  had  been  administered  to  two  of  the 
Apostles  who  partook  of  the  Lord's  supper  at  its  in- 
stitution. 

But  Alford's  interpretation  of  this  re-baptism  based 
on  a  literal  rendering  of  the  tenses  puts  the  act  in 
still  a  strono-er  lio^ht  : 

"  These  seem  to  have  been  in  the  same  situation 
as  Apollos.  They  cannot  have  been  mere  disciples 
of  John,  on  account  of  Tti6Tsv6ayTs<i,  which  can  bear 
no  meaning  but  that  of  believing  on  the  Lord  Jesus  ; 
but  they  had  received  only  John's  baptism,  and  had 
had  no  proof  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  nor 
knowledge  of  His  gifts. 

eXafd.  Ttidrsvi.  The  aorist  should  be  faithfully 
rendered,  not  as  in  the  English  Version,  ^  Save  ye 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed  ? '  but 
^  Did  ye  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  when  ye  became 
BELIEVERS  ? '  i.  0.,  '  on  youv  hecoming  believers  had 
ye  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  conferred  on  you  ?  ' — as  in 
ch.  viii.  16,  17.  This  is  both  grammatically  neces- 
sary (see  also  Rom.,  xiii.,  11,  eyyvrspov  ijiioov  7/ 
6oar7]pia  if  ors  sTtidtEvdajner)  and  absolutely  demand- 
ed by  the  sense  ;  the  enquiry  being  not  as  to  any  re- 
ception of  the  Holy  Ghost  during  the  period  since 
their  baptism,  but  as  to  one  simultaneous  with  their 


128      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

first  reception  into  the  churcli :"'''  and  tlieir  not  having 
then  received  Him  is  accounted  for  by  the  deficiency 
of  their  baptism.-j* 

a'/iA  ovSe,  ON  THE  CONTRARY,  not  even  *'•'  •■'  * 
?}xovda/uev.  Here  again,  not,  '  we  have  not  heard,' 
but  WE  DID  NOT  HEAR  at  the  time  of  our  conversion  : 
— Our  reception  into  the  faith  was  unaccompanied 
by  any  preaching  of  the  office  or  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit, — our  baptism  was  not  followed  by  any  im- 
parting of  His  gifts  :  we  did  not  so  much  as  hear 

HIM  mentioned 

Two  singular  perversions  of  this  verse  have  occur- 
red. 1.  The  Anabaptists  use  it  to  authorize  the  repe- 
tition of  Christian  baptism  ;  |  whereas,  it  is  not  Chris- 
tian baptism  which  was  repeated,  seeing  that  John's 
haptism  was  not  such,  but  only  the  baptism  which 
they  now  for  the  first  time  received  ;  and,  2.  Beza, 
Calixtus,  Calv.,  Suicer,  Glass.,  Buddeus,Wolf,  et  al., 

*  If  these  "  disciples  "  were  members  of  a  Christian  church  (and 
why  were  they  not  1)  it  is  probable  that  they  had  often  communed. 

•fFor  proofs  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  did  not  depend  on  previous 
water  baptism,  see  "  Water  Baptism  and  Spirit  Baptism  Distin- 
guished." 

:j:  "Anabaptists  "  (Baplists,  we  call  ourselves)  do  not  regard  the 
sjM-inkling  of  infants  as  "Christian  baptism;  "  and  hence,  in  inten- 
tion, to  say  nothing  of  fact,  no  more  deserve  the  nick-name  than 
Paul. 


APPENDIX.  129 

wishing  to  wrest  this  weapon  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  Anabaptists,  oddly  enough  su2:)pose  this  verse  to 
belong  still  to  Paul's  discourse,  and  to  mean,  ^  and 
the  peoi^le  when  they  heo.rd  hhn  {John)  were  hap^ 
tised  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'  This  ob- 
viously is  contrary  to  fact  historically :  and  would 
leave  our  present  narrative  in  a  singular  state  ;  for 
Paul,  having  treated  their  baptism  as  insufficient 
would  thus  proceed  on  it  to  impose  his  hands  as  if  it 
were  sufficient." 

Alford  also  discusses  in  this  connection  the  gene- 
ral question  of  rebaptism.  "  Was  it,"  says  he,  "  the 
ordinary  practice  to  re-baptize  those  who  had  been 
baptized  either  by  John  or  by  the  disciples  hefore 
baptism  became,  by  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
XovTpuv  TtaXiyyEVEdiai?  This  we  cannot  definitely 
answer.  That  it  was  sometimes  done  this  incident 
shows  :  but  in  all  probability,  in  the  cases  of  the 
majority  of  the  original  disciples,  the  greater  baptism 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
superseded  the  outward  form  or  sign.  The  Apostles 
themselves  received  only  this  bap)tism  (besides  proba- 
bably  that  of  John)  and  most  likely  the  same  was 
the  case  luith  the  original  believers.  But  of  the  three 
thousand  who  were  added  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
very  many  must  have  been  already  baptized  by  John, 
and  all  were  baptized  without  inquiry.'' 


130      CLOSE  COMMUNION^  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

(5.) 

Else  what  shall  they  do,  who  are  baptized  for  the  dead, 
if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  ?  why  are  they  then  baptized  for 
the  dead?  (1  Cor.  xv.,  29). 

To  such  an  extreme  has  the  doctrine  of  Indorse- 
ment been  carried,  that  the  Scriptures  are  twisted 
out  of  their  plainest,  fairest  meanings,  for  fear  that 
there  shall  ever  seem  to  be  an  allusion  to  a  repre- 
hensible practice  without  an  express  condemnation  of 
it — as  if  you  must  say  that  you  do  not  like  the  devil 
or  a  mosquito,  whenever  you  mention  either.  Thus 
it  happens  that  many  commentators  have  puzzled 
their  brains,  and  contradicted  their  scholarship,  or  re- 
vealed their  ignorance,  to  invent  explanations  of  this 
passage,  to  show  that  Paul  does  not  allude  to  bap- 
tism for  the  dead,  because  he  does  not  stop  in  his 
magnificent  argument  to  expressly  condemn  that 
practice. 

This  common  idea  should  make  those  who  hold  it, 
regard  music,  dancing,  drinking,  and  other  conviv- 
alitics  as  divine,  for  Jesus  alluded  to  them,  sometimes 
in  the  most  sacred  and  precious  connections,  without 
a  word  of  condemnation. 

Fortunately,  however,  for  the  case  in  hand,  v-xep 


APPENDIX.  131 

for  those  who  know  its  meaning,  is  a  hard  fence  to 
vault,  and  very  im]3ortant  in  limiting  other  passages. 
Then  there  is  so  much  honesty  and  common  sense  in 
the  following  interpretation  by  Alford,  that  it  needs 
simply  to  be  read  to  win  its  way  : 

ETtEi  resumes  the  main  argument,  which  has  been 
interrupted  by  the   explanation,   since  ver.  23,  of 

lHa6zo6  iv   rep  idicp  rdy^ari.    After  it  IS  an  ellipsis  of 

*^  if  it  be  as  the  adversaries  suppose." 

rz  7toiy(jov6iv. — There  is  in  these  words  a  tacit  re- 
prehension of  the  practice  about  to  be  mentioned, 
which  it  is  hardly  possible  altogether  to  miss.  Both 
by  the  third  person,  and  by  the  article  before  ftccTtv., 
he  indirectly  separates  himself,  and  those  to  whom 
he  is  writing,  from  participation  in,  or  approval  of 
the  practice  : — the  meaning  being  what  will  be- 
come OF — what  account  can  they  give  of  their 
practice  ? 

oi  ft  an  T  1^6  1.1  Ev  01,  THOSE  WHO  ARE  IN  THE  HABIT  OF 

BEING  BAPTIZED — not  oi  pa7tTi6B£VTE<i.  The  distinc- 
tion is  important  as  affecting  the  interpretation. 
See  below. 

vTCEp  Twv  VEKpcSr^  ON  behalf  of  THE  DEAD  ;  viz.,  tJie 
same  vExpoi,  who  are  spoken  of  in  the  next  clause, 
and  throughout  the  chapter,  as  the  subjects  of  drddra- 
<3i?, — not  vEHpoi  in  any  figurative  sense,     roov  vExp., 


132      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUfTION  ? 

the  article  marking  the  particular  dead  persons  on 
behalf  of  whom  the  act  took  place. 

Before  we  pass  to  the  exegesis,  it  will  be  well  to  go 
through  the  next  question — H  0X00%  u.r.x.    If  dead 

MEN  ARE  NOT  RAISED  AT  ALL,  WHY  DO  THEY  TROUBLE 
themselves  to  be  BAPTIZED  FOR  THEM  ? 

Thus  much  being  said  as  to  the  plain  meaning 
of  the  words  used,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to 
their  interpretation.  The  only  legitimate  refer- 
ence is  to  a  practice,  not  otherwise  known  to  us, 
not  mentioned  here  with  any  approval  by  the  Apos- 
tle, not  generally  prevalent  (o£  /Sairz.),  but  in  use 
by  some, — of  survivors  allowing  themselves  to  he  hap- 
tized  on  hehalf  of  (believing  ?)  friends  who  had 
died  ivithout  baptism.  With  the  subsequent  sim- 
ilar practices  of  the  Corinthians  and  Marcionites,  this 
may  or  may  not  have  been  connected.  All  we  clearly 
see  from  the  text,  is,  that  it  unquestionably  did 
exist  (Alford's  Greek  Test,  in  loc.  So  also  Am- 
brose and  Anselm,  Erasmus,  Grotius,  al.,  and  re- 
cently by  Billroth,  Kiickert,  Meyer,  De  Wette,  a?.). 

The  same  author  says  that  the  following  from  Stan- 
ley is  worth  quoting  :  "On  the  whole  therefore  this 
explanation  of  the  passage  [given  above)  may  be  safe- 
ly accepted,  l,as  exhibiting  a  curious  relic  of  primitive 
superstition,  which  after  having,  as  the  words  im- 


APPENDIX.  133 

ply(?)  prevailed  generally  in  tlie  apostolical  church, 
gradually  dwindled  away  till  it  was  only  to  be  found 
in  some  obscure  sects  where  it  lost  its  original  signifi- 
cance ;  2,  as  containing  an  example  of  the  Apostle's 
mode  of  dealing  with  a  practice  with  which  he  could 
have  no  real  sympathy  ;  not  condemning  or  ridicul- 
ing it,  but  appealing  to  it,  as  an  expression,  however 
distorted,  of  their  better  feelings/'-^' 

(6.) 

To  show  the  kind  of  statements  which  pass  cur- 
rent among  us,  with  the  editorial  indorsement  of  such 
an  able  and  candid  journal  as  the  Watchman  and 
Beflector,  I  quote  a  few  of  forty-one  "  Facts  on  Bap- 
tism and  Communion,"  by  Eev.  J.  C.  Foster  of  Bev- 
erly, Mass. 

"  28.  It  is  a  fact  that  Baptists  are  not  responsible  for  tlie 
separation  of  Christians  at  the  Lord's  table,  since  they  could 
not  unite  there  with  the  unimmersed  without  the  violation 
of  their  consciences,  while  the  unimmersed  could  unite  with  them 
without  2iciying  such  a  price,  In/  leing  immersed,  holding  as  they  do 
that  immersion  is  taptism,  while  Baptists  hold  that  sprinkling 
is  not  baptism." 

By  observing  the  italics,  it   will  be  seen  that  a 

*For  other  expressions  of  this  interpretation,  and  for  different 
interpretations  see  Lange's  Commentary. 


134      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

very  important  fact  is  ignored  in  this  assertion  ; 
namely,  that  Pedobaptists  believe  that  sprinhling 
is  as  valid  water-baptism  as  immersion,  and  hence, 
that,  according  to  their  conscience  anabaptism 
would  be  the  "  price  "  of  communing  with  us  on 
our  terms.  The  petitio  iDrincipii  which  precedes 
this  evident  blunder,  is  to  be  found  in  the  assump- 
tion that  the  '■'consciences"  of  close-communion 
Baptists  are  the  standards  hy  which  their  resioon- 
sihility  for  the  separation  of  Christians  at  the 
Lord's  table  is  to  he  decided.  Then,  again,  when 
Mr.  Foster  says  that  "  Baptists  cannot  unite,""  &c., 
he  either  im|)lies  that  such  men  as  Bunyan  and  Hall, 
Spurgeon  and  Noel,  are  not  Baptists,  or  that  they 
and  the  thousands  who  agree  with  them,  are  not 
worthy  of  consideration  at  all.  Which  is  it — an  at- 
tempted monopoly  of  the  name,  or  a  want  of  respect 
for  respectable  brethren  ? 

"  29.  It  is  a  fact  that  all  tliat  is  necessary  for  all  Chris- 
tians to  be  united  at  the  Lord's  table,  is  for  all  to  be  bap- 
tized according  to  what  all  agree  is  baptism." 

Here  the  blunder  of  "Fact  28  "  is  repeated  ;  for 
Pedobaptists,  who  have  been  baptized  by  either  one 
of  the  two  forms  which  they  consider  equally  valid, 
cannot  submit  to  immersion,  because  they  feel  that 
in  their  cases  it  would  be  robaptism.     I  cannot  ac- 


APPENDIX.  135 

count  for  such  blundering  as  this,  which  woukl  al- 
most prove  even  a  tyro  in  logic  a  dunce,  except  on 
the  supposition  that  we  do  not  believe  that  anybody 
has  a  conscience  on  water  baptism  except  ourselves. 

"  30.  It  is  a  fact  fhat  tlie  advocates  of  what  is  called  *  open 
communion '  demand  of  Ba^^tists  that  they  should  solemnly  sanc- 
tion sprinkling  as  lapti&m,  when  they  most  honestly  and  decidedly 
helieve  that  it  is  not  baptism." 

Who  are  meant  by  the  advocates  of  open  com- 
munion ?  If  its  Baptist  friends,  Mr.  Foster  should 
know  that  most  of  them  advocate  it  on  the  ground 
that  the  Scriptures  do  not  make  water  baptism  a 
prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  supper  ;  and  others,  be- 
cause they  believe  that  on  this  matter  every  man 
should  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind,  and  that 
each  is  responsible  for  himself,  and  to  the  Lord 
alone.  If  Mr.  Foster  means  the  Pedobaptist  advo- 
cates of  open  communion,  it  is  a  question  whether  it 
is  either  modest  or  safe  for  him  to  speak  for  them  in 
such  a  sweeping  and  dogmatic  style.  I  never  meet 
Pedobaptists  who  ask  me  to  believe  more  than  the 
sincerity  of  their  belief  that  sprinkling  is  baptisni, 
and  that  they  consider  themselves  baptized. 

31  "  It  is  a  fact  that  for  Baptists  to  go  to  the  table  of  other 
denominations  (not  the  Lord's  ?)  would  require  a  sacrifice  of 


136      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

conscience,  while   for  other  denominations  to  come  to  them 
wauld  require  only  the  sacrifice  of  convenience.''* 

What  does  this  statement  mean  ?  It  is  really 
an  accusation  to  this  effect, — that  while  "  other 
denominations"  profess  to  regard  sprinkling,  and 
immersion,  equally  valid  water  baptism,  they  really 
timik  so  of  immersion  only ;  for  how  otherwise 
can  the  question  of  their  immersion,  tJiey  having 
been  sprinJcled,  and  regarding  sprinkling  as  valid 
hajjtism,  be  simply  one  of  ^'  convenience  ?  "  This 
looks  as  if  my  supposition  that  we  are  sure  that 
we  have  the  monopoly  of  conscience  on  water  bap- 
tism, were  too  well  founded,  especially  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  editor  indorsed  the  article  under 
criticism,  as  follows  :  "  It  gives  in  the  tersest  man- 
ner forty  or  more  facts  that  are  telling  because 
truthful/'  They  would  all  be  "  telling  "  in  the  edi- 
torial sense,  if  they  were  all  "  truthful  ; "  but 
those  of  them  which  are  not  truthful,  are  still  ex- 
ceedingly "  telling  " — only  in  another  direction. 

34.  It  is  a  fact  that  the  Lord's  supper  was  not  instituted 
for  the  purpose  of  manifesting  brotherly  love,  or  demonstra- 
ting liberality,  and  that  its  open  observance  docs  not  enable 
those  who  might  commune  together,  if  they  would,  to  love 
each  other  any  better  for  this  questionable  x3rivilego." 

The  latter  half  of  this  statement  is  not  a  Papal,  but 


APPENDIX.  *  137 

it  is  a  close-communion-Baptist,  hull.  Behold  the  cu- 
rious blending  of  the  indicative  and  the  potential  ! — • 
"  its  open  observance  does  not  enable  those  who  might 
commune  together,  if  they  ivould,  to  love  each  other 
any  better  for  this  questionable  'privilege.''  Of 
course  it  doesn't ;  for  if  Mr.  Foster  can  say  of  any 
Christians,  they  '^  might  commune  together  if  they 
would,^'  it  is  to  be  inferred,  if  he  understands  their 
case,  that  they  don't.  "  Questionable  privilege,"  in 
this  connection,  is  mild  phraseology  ;  but,  under 
these  conditions,  it  is  hard  to  find  anything  more  ap- 
propriate. Whether  a  slip  of  the  printer's  hand,  or 
of  Mr.  Foster's  pen,  it  is  quite  as  good  as  the  most 
"  telling  "  hit  which  was  made  by  an  Irish  graduate 
of  Mr.  Spurgeon's  college,  at  the  Papists,  when  he 
said  that  in  his  native  country  he  had  seen  five  hun- 
dred of  these  poor  dejuded  creatures  crowd  into  a 
hole  which  wouldn't  hold  fifty.  Yes,  brother,  open 
communion,  on  the  part  of  those  who  might  com- 
mune together,  if  they  would,  does  not  enable  them 
"  to  love  each  other  any  better  for  this  questionable 
privilege.''  Suppose,  however,  that  they  try  it 
properly,  and  then  report. 

But,  in  all  seriousness,  was  not  the  Lord's  supper 
instituted  "  for  the  purpose  of  manifesting  brotherly 
love  ? "     When  the  ordinance  is  properly  observed 


138       CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 


we  feed  on  Christ.  "  Take  eat ;  this  is  my  body, 
which  is  broken  for  you/'  And  feeding  on  the  same 
spiritual  food,  are  we  not  one  in  the  purest  essence, 
and  the  most  tender  and  lasting  relations  ?  I  grant 
that  the  result  of  communion  in  the  right  spirit  is 
not  so  much  a  "  manifesting  "  of  brotherly  love  as  a 
making  of  it,  but  it  is  also  a  manifesting,  for  the 
best  of  all  reasons — because  it  is  a  making.  The 
greater  includes  the  less.  So  argued  Paul,  who  re- 
ceived his  views  of  communion  from  the  Lord : 
'^  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion 
of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  For  we,  being  many,  are 
ONE  BREAD  and  ONE  BODY,/or  we  are  all  partakers 
of  that  one  bread" 

"  37.  It  is  a  fact  that  there  is  no  longer  any  occasion  for 
maintaining  Baptist  churches  when  the  true  Baptist  position 
in  regard  to  communion  as  strictly  a  church  ordinance,  al- 
ways to  be  preceded  by  baptism,  is  abandoned ;  hence  it  is 
not  surjjrising  that  the  way  from  an  open-communion  Bap- 
tist church  into  a  Pedobaptist  church,  is  found  exceedingly 
direct  and  easy,  and  that  '  many  there  be  which  go  in  there- 
at.' " 

Whately's  warning  not  to  press  an  analogy  too 
far,  should  be  regarded  in  applying  Mr.  Foster's 
quotation  to  the  churches  of  our  brethren,  for  the 
gate  to  which  it  alludes  does  not  open  into  a  heav- 
enly communion.     Indeed,  it  is  better  in  this  case 


APPENDIX.  139 

to  "  leave  off  before  you  begin,"  for  it  is  but  a  step 
to  "  destruction/'  I  have  answered  this  thirty-sev- 
enth "fact,"  in  the  chapter  on  Apostolic  Exam- 
ple, by  saying,  that,  if  it  is  true,  the  Baptist  denom- 
ination ought  to  die.  But  I  am  so  much  stronger  a 
Baptist  than  he,  or  any  of  my  close-communion 
brethren,  that  I  believe  our  denomination  would 
have  an  unimpaired  right,  aye,  and  a  higher  call,  to 
live,  if  it  did  not  insist  on  this  practice. 

If,  by  anything  higher  than  church  authority,  the 
communion  is  "  strictly  a  church  ordinance,  always 
to  be  preceded  by  baptism,"  somebody  should  arraign 
the  Lord  of  the  supper  for  instituting  it  as  He  did. 
Was  there  a  Christian  church  before  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ  ?  If  so,  why  did  He  say  to 
Peter,  "  Thou  art  Tte'rpo?,  and  on  this  rock  I  will 
BUILD  MY  CHURCH,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it  ?  "  The  use  of  the  future  tense  is 
decisive  ;  and,  moreover,  Peter  was  not  fit  for  build- 
ing till  after  his  restoration  from  his  apostasy.  Then, 
again,  where  were  the  other  members,  the  women 
who  followed  Him  through  Galilee  with  the  twelve, 
and  ministered  to  him  of  their  substance  ;  and  the 
five  hundred  brethren  who  saw  Him  after  He  was 
risen  ?  Was  it  not  in  their  synagogues  that  the 
Master  taught,  and  the  disciples  listened  and  wor- 


140      CLOSE    COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

shiped  ?  And  why  was  it  that  in  a  Christian  church 
no  prayer  was  made  in  the  name  of  Christ  ?  He 
had  taught  His  discij)les  to  pray,  hut  not  for  His 
sake.  It  was  after  the  supper,  and  under  the 
shadow  of  Calvary,  that  He  said  to  them,  ''  Hitherto 
ye  have  asked  nothing  in  my  name  ;  ask,  and  ye 
shall  receive,  that  your  joy  may  he  full." 

But  it  hy  no  means  follows,  as  is  maintained  in 
"  A  Familiar  Dialogue  between  Peter  and  Benjamin 
on  the  Subject  of  Close  Communion,"  that  the 
Lord's  supper  was  a  Jewish  rite,  or  something  be- 
longing to  the  old  dispensation,  except  in  the  esti- 
mation of  those  who  wish  to  have  everything  cut, 
dried,  and  labeled,  who  love  neither  greenness  nor 
growth,  and  would  have  Christianity  in  the  method 
of  its  development,  and  in  the  precision  and  impor- 
tance of  its  forms,  even  to  the  minutest  details,  a 
second  edition,  instead  of  the  spiritual  fulfilment,  of 
the  Mosaic  law.  Christ,  Himself,  as  the  God-Man, 
fulfilled  the  law.  While  He  lived  He  tuas  fulfillmg 
it.  He  came  to  be  our  Passover,  and  He  became  our 
Passover  when  He  offered  Himself  once  and  for  all. 
The  Jewish  passover,  which  He  kept  on  the  eve  of 
its  fulfilment  in  Himself,  died  in  giving  birth  at  His 
hands  to  the  communion,  which,  as  I  hope  1  have 
shown  in  this  book,  He  made  a  sign  and  a  means  of 


APPENDIX.  141 

the  life  which  we  have  in  Him,  and  with  each 
other. 

"  38.  It  is  a  fact  that  whenever  persons  become  unsettled 
upon  the  communion  question,  they  become  so  much  un- 
settled as  consistent  and  steadfast  Baptists,  and  either  they, 
or  members  of  their  families,  are  sooner  or  later  found  in- 
side of  other  than  Baptist  churches." 

Why  ?  Because  they  are  often  driven  to  the  con- 
clusion that  there  is  no  liberty  allowed  them  to  fol- 
low their  consciences  in  this  regard  inside  the  de- 
nomination. This  is  a  question  which'must  soon  be 
settled,  if,  indeed,  by  the  resolutions  of  associations 
the  action  of  individual  churches,  and  the  utterances 
of  professedly  representative  journals,  it  be  not 
settled  already.  I  scarcely  know  whether  I  am  a 
Baptist  or  not.  By  Curtis'  "  Principles  and  Practices 
of  Baptists,"  by  some  of  Mr.  Foster's  "  facts,"  and  by 
the  general  tone  of  our  Baptist  papers,  I  am  not ; 
but  if  John  Bunyan  was  a  Baptist,  if  Koo-er 
Williams  was  a  Baptist  ;  or  if  Charles  Spurgeon, 
William  Brock,  or  Baptist  Noel,  is  a  Baptist,  then  I 
am  a  Baptist  too.  The  decision,  however,  makes 
little  difference,  for  no  name  can  be  nobler  or  more 
appropriate  for  followers  of  Christ  than  that  which 
was  given  them  at  Antioch. 

"41.  It  is  a  fact  that  before  the  sinner  is  converted  he 
must  give  up  his  determination  to  have  his  own  way  respect- 


142      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION? 

ing  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  that  after  his  conversion  it 
does  n^t  become  him  to  ding  to  his  own  way  concerning  the  duties  of 
religion  regardless  of  the  way  ajjpolnted  in  the  Scri2)tures.^^ 

Indisputable.  But  this  resembles  what  the  open 
communionists  think  that  the  close  communionists  are 
doing  by  dogmatizing  instead  of  arguing,  and  taking 
for  granted,  instead  of  proving,  the  question  at  issue. 
They  cannot  point  to  Christ's  example,  for  that  is  fatal 
to  the  idea  that  "  communion  is  strictly  a  church 
ordinance,  always  to  be  preceded  by  baptism  ;  "  or 
to  that  of  the  Apostles,  or  to  a  single  inspired  pre- 
cept, to  show  that  their  "  way  'Ms  *•  appointed  in 
the  Scriptures.''  When  did  it  begin  ?  On  the 
night  of  His  betrayal,  when  Christ  instituted  the 
communion  with  only  the  twelve,  before  His  death, 
and  before  His  resurrection,  which  are  symbolized 
by  Christian  baptism,  and  before  His  delivery  of  the 
baptismal  commission  ?  Or  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost when  there  was  no  difference  of  opinion  on  the 
form  of  Avater  baptism  among  believers  ?  Or  ivJie7i 
Peter  ivithdreio  and  separated  liimself  from  the 
uncircumcision  ?  It  seems  to  me  that  American 
Baptists  must  treat  Intercommunion  as  an  open 
question,  and  recognize  the  liberty  of  each  church 
to  practise  it,  or  divide  into  two  denominations. 
Time  will  tell,  and  God  will  use  the  result  for  o-ood. 


APPENDIX.  143 

Meanwhile,  although  honest  and  kind  in  discus- 
sion, let  us  call  things  by  their  right  names.  The 
Watchman  and  Reflector,  in  apologizing  for  printing 
a  very  mild  letter  from  'Hhe  pastor  of  the  largest 
Baptist  church  in  Philadelphia  "  (Freedom  should 
make  a  how  for  this  heroism),  alludes  to  a  nameless 
contemporary  as  follows  : 

"  Our  views  of  editorial  responsibility  do  not  require  us 
to  do  in  this  matter  like  unto  a  certain  other  Baptist  editor 
that  we  know  of;  that  is,  cut  out  and  pare  down  the  lan- 
guage of  a  correspondent  so  as  to  express  just  what  the  lib- 
eral minded  editor  regards  as  proper  to  be  said.  The  freedom 
of  such  a  press — at  least  among  Baptists — is  worthy  of  little 
less  than  contempt.  The  Watchman  has  ever  been,  and  must 
ever  remain,  the  fearless  steadfast  defender  of  the  '  faith  once 
delivered '  (close  communion  ?),  but  never  by  any  of  the 
practised  arts  of  suppression,  or  Jesuitism." 

That  word  has  Jesus  in  it,  and  it  need  not  he  used 
in  this  connection  even  if  appropriate.  What  is  it 
that  is  here  so  mildly  charged  ?  Suppose  that  the 
language  of  a  correspondent  who  has  an  opinion  of  his 
ov/n  on  a  given  subject,  and  has  expressed  it  clearly, 
is  so  changed  that  a  different  meaning  attaches  to  the 
words  which  are  published  as  his,  of  what  is  the 
author  of  the  change  and  the  publication  guilty  ? 
Of  nothing  less  than  forgery,  and  that  with  the  in- 


144      CLOSE  COMBIUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

tention  which  is  generally  the  animus  of  the  crime 
— I  mean,  to  sivindle  ;  for  whoever  knowingly  pub- 
lishes as  a  certain  man's  utterance  something  differ- 
ent in  meaning  from  what  he  has  uttered,  swindles 
with  ideas  instead  of  notes,  and  if  there  is  any  dif- 
ference in  guilt  it  may  be  measured  by  the  differ- 
ence in  value  between  mind  and  money.  '-^  Charity," 
which  "  never  faileth,"  loves  fair  play,  and  although 
she  "  endureth  all  things,"  yet  cheating,  or  unwill- 
ingness to  hear,  especially  in  the  name  of  her  sister. 
Truth,  is  something  which  she  finds  most  grevious 
to  be  borne. 


In  vol.  iii.  of  "  The  Ba^Jtist  Library,  a  republica- 
tion of  Standard  Baptist  Works,"  issued  in  1842, 
and  edited  by  three  Baptist  ministers,  one  of  whom 
has  no  superior  in  our  church  as  a  thinker,  a  writer, 
and  a  scholar,  selections  from  Bunyan  and  Hall  are 
bound  w])  with  Professor  Kij)ley's  vindication  of  close 
communion,  and  the  "  Familiar  Dialogue,"  to  which 
I  have  already  alluded.  It  is  curious,  that,  in  the 
latter,  ^^  Peter"  is  the  close  communionist,  but  quite 
the  thing  that  ^^  Benjamin"  cannot  answer  his  argu- 
ments, for  in  a  dialogue  one  of  the  two  must  gener- 
ally play  the  fool.     ^'  Benjamin  "  was  certainly  not 


APPENDIX.  145 


very  Lriglit  when  it  was  so  easy  to  "  relieve  "  his 
"mind"  of  the  suspicion  that  the  Ephesian  disciples 
were  "  rebaptized/'      See  Appendix  (4). 


"M."  puts  the  following  question  to  the  Examiner 
and  Chronicle  in  its  issue  of  November  19th  : 

"  Is  it  right,  or  is  it  wrong,  for  a  church  to  receive  into  its 
fellowship  a  brother  who  declares  that  while  he  believes  im- 
mersion only  is  baptism,  he  sees  no  connection  between 
that  ordinance  and  the  supper,  and  who  could  sit  down  at 
the  Lord's  table  with  an  unbaptized  person  without  feeling 
that  he  had  broken  a  Bible  law  ?  " 

To  which  the  editor  replies  as  follows  : 

"  "We  do  not  see  how  any  regular  Baptist  church  could  re* 
ceive  a  brother  holding  the  views  above  described.  What 
such  a  brother  needs  is  to  have  the  way  of  God  more  per- 
fectly expounded  to  him,  and  he  should  be  commended  to 
the  care  of  some  Aquila  or  Priscilla,  kindly  to  do  that  service 
him.  If,  after  such  an  endeavor,  he  still  persists  in  seeing 
no  connection  between  the  two  ordinances  as  is  believed  in 
by  all  regular  Baptist  churches,  he  should  be  permitted,  as 
we  think,  to  seek  a  spiritual  home  outside  the  Baptist  de- 
nomination." 

No  wonder  that  Mr.  Foster  has  noticed  (see 
"  fact  38  '')  that  either  those  j)ersons  who  become 
unsettled  upon  the  communion  question,  or  members 


146      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

of  their  families^  are  sooner  or  later  found  witliin 
other  than  Baptist  churches  ;  for  the  Examiner  and 
Chronicle,  and  its  consituency,  which  is  doubtless 
large,  would  make  "the  Baptist  denomination"  dis- 
agreeable beyond  endurance  to  the  former,  and  keep 
the  latter,  if  they  shared  their  parents'  opinions,  from 
getting  into  it  at  all.  Unless  a  different  spirit  than 
this  prevails,  it  is  clear  that  "  the  Baptist  denomi- 
nation "  must  be  divided.  Indeed  I  do  not  see  how 
Baptist  ministers  who  have  publicly  denied  that 
water  baptism  before  communion  is  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed order,  can  remain  in  their  present  relations, 
and  keep  their  manhood,  unless  they  regard  such  ut- 
terances as  Dr.  Bright's  of  insufficient  representative 
value.  Judged  by  its  merits,  it  is  open  to  criticism, 
for  it  favors  a  condition  of  admission  to  the  church 
which  is  opposed  both  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the 
Scriptures.  But  that  it  is  representative  to  quite  an 
extent  may  be  safely  inferred  from  the  mere  fact  of 
its  publication.  Its  author  is  not  likely  to  be  mis- 
taken in  a  matter  like  this,  for  instinct  in  its  sphere 
is  surer  than  reason. 

On  close-communion-Baptist  principles,  nothing 
but  a  "thussaith  the  Lord"  is  of  binding  authority. 
This  is  a  fundamental  idea.  But  where  is  the  Scrip- 
ture which  forbids  us  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  supper 


APPENDIX.  147 

either  with  believers  who,  in  our  opinion,  have  mis- 
taken tlie  mode  and  suhjects  of  water  baptism,  or  are 
untouched  by  the  water  of  tlie  baptismal  font  ? 
Where  is  "  the  body  of  Christ  "  limited  in  its  mem- 
bers to  Cliristians  who  have  been  dipped  in  water — 
except,  by  implication,  in  a  close-communion-Bap- 
tist  church  ?  What  an  Aquila  or  Priscilla  the 
Exo.miner  and  Chronicle  would  have  been  to  show 
John  Bunyan  ^' the  better  way,"  or  ^'kindly  to  do 
that  service"  for  Robert  Hall  !  I  say  nothing  of 
the  Master  and  the  first  communion  in  this  con- 
nection, for,  though  fearless,  I  would  not  be  irrev- 
erent. Even  at  the  meeting  of  an  association  in 
which  are  some  ministers  of  sujjcrior  education  and 
large  acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures,  silence, 
which  is  said  to  give  consent,  was  the  only  resj)onso 
to  a  challenge  for  a  precept  which  shows  that  the 
close-communion  ord(ir  is  divine.  Of  course  those 
fearful  whispers  about  the  position  and  the  fate  of 
Sunday  on  close-comnmnion  grounds  were  no  answer 
to  Dr.  CaswelFs  question. 

Dr.  Briglit  should  not  bring  Aquila  and  Priscilla 
into  the  foreground,  for,  from  the  close-communion 
position,  that  John's  baptism  was  Christian  baptism, 
and  John's  preaching  Gospel  preaching,  it  does  not 
appear  that  Apollos  needed  to  have  the  way  of  God 


148      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

explained  more  -perfectlj,  for  lie  understood  the  bap- 
tism of  John,  and  taught  diligently  the  things  con- 
cerning Jesus.  It  has  been  supposed  from  Acts 
xviii.,  28,  that  he  did  not  know  Jesus  as  the  Mes- 
siah until  after  the  teaching  of  this  Christian  pair. 
"The  same  mistake,"  says  Alford,  "has  led  to  the 
alteration  of  'lr^6ov  into  the  nvpiov  of  the  rec."  For  it 
followed  that  if  Apoilos  did  not  regard  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  he  could  not  have  taught  diligently  the 
things  concerning  Him.  This  author  also  observes 
that  the  doctinnes  of  the  cross,  the  resurrection  and 
the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  were  unknown  to  Apol- 
los,  "  but  more  2^articularly  the  latter,  as  connected 
tvith  Christian  hcqjtism.'^  It  can  scarcely  be  said 
that  Aquila  and  Priscilla  converted  Apollos  to 
Christianity,  for  his  face  was  that  w^ay,  and  he  was 
going  thitherward,  but  they  helped  him  to  the 
goal.  One  thing,  however,  is  certain,  that,  before 
they  instructed  Mm,  he  held  the  close-communion 
view  of  Johannic  hai^tism;  for,  as  Meyer  remarks, 
"  it  is  not  meant  (by  ^  knowing  onl}^  the  baptism  of 
John ')  that  he  was  absolutely  ignorant  of  there  being 
such  a  thing  as  Christian  bajotism,  but  ignorant  of 
its  being  anything  different  jrom  that  of  John;  he 
knew,  or  recognized,  in  baj)tism  only  that  ivhich  the 
bajptism  of  John  loas:  A  sign  of  kepentance."     If 


APPENDIX.  149 

it  were  modest  or  courteous  to  follow  the  example  of 
the  Examiner  and  Chronicle^  I  would  suggest  that 
what  it  needs,  in  common  with  many  other  close 
communionists,  is  to  be  commended  to  the  care  of 
some  Aquila  or  Priscilla,  or  what  would  be  much 
better,  to  study  the  Scriptures  a  little  more  carefully 
before  appealing  to  them  with  such  confidence  as 
despises  the  mention  of  the  chapter  and  verse.  We 
would  listen  to  the  Lord. 

But  potent  as  may  be  the  say-so  of  the  editor  and 
proprietor  of  a  "  regular  "  Baptist  weekly,  it  can 
scarcely  pass  for  the  word  of  God  ;  and  it  need 
not  be  surprising  if  some  of  those  who  do  not  like  all 
the  tunes  which  this  organ  plays,  decide  to  ascertain 
whether  or  not  they  can  use  the  liberty  which  they 
have  in  Christ  inside  of  ''the  Baptist  denomination  " 
before  they  leave  it,  or  are  driven  out. 

(7.) 

Although  this  book  is  by  no  means  a  review  of 
the  various  vindications  of  close  communion,  it  may 
not  be  inappropriate  in  this  connection  to  notice 
two  or  three  of  Mr.  Howell's  statements  in  defence  of 
this  practice. 

In  common  with  those  who  agree  with  him,  he 
ignores  the  difference  between  believing  that  dipping 


150      CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

in  water  is  essential  to  communion^  and  that  you  are 
not  only  bound  to  observe  this  prerequisite  yourself, 
but  also  to  insist  that  other  Christians  who  interpret 
the  Scrij^tures  differently  shall  submit  to  it  too,  on 
l^enalty  of  exclusion  from  the  Lord's  table.  As  has 
been  stated,  these  two  things  are  different,  and  do  not 
necessarily  follow  each  other.  To  hold  them  both 
involves  two  conclusions  ;  1,  that  the  church  has 
130wer,  without  an  inspired  precept,  to  receive  or  ex- 
clude from  the  Lord's  supper  whom  she  pleases — one 
which  is  accepted  by  the  Koman  Catholics, — and,  2, 
that  our  denomination  is  the  only  church,  which  is 
just  what  they  claim  for  theirs. 

While  settling  things  to  his  own  satisfaction,  and 
inveighing  against  the  so-called  monstrous  blunders 
of  Robert  Hall,  Mr.  Howell  takes  it  for  granted,  not- 
withstanding many  texts  to  the  contrary  (see  my 
chapter  on  '^  The  Baptism  of  the  First  Communi- 
cants), that  the  heading  of  Mark's  narrative  means 
that  the  baptism  of  John  loas  the  beginning  of  the 
Gosioel  of  Jesus  Christ,  But  every  candid  scholar 
must  notice  that  the  heading  is  supplemented  by 
citations  from  two  i^rophets  (Malachi  and  Isaiah), 
and  that  their  application  to  John  introduces  us  to 
the  subject  matter  of  the  author.  Moreover,  "  the  gos- 
pel of  Jesus  Christ "  is  here  objective,  and  means 


APPE^'DIX. 


151 


the  good  neivs  about  Him  (see  Alford  and  Meyer 
in  loc),  which  began,  as,  it  seems  to  me,  Mark's 
heading  asserts,  with  prophets  long  anterior  to  John  ; 
and  which,  indeed,  beamed  through  God's  cm'se  of 
the.  serpent  into  the  Eden  and  the  world  which  sin 
had  blighted  :  "  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and 
the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed  ; 
it  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his 
heel/'^     But  the  prophecies  quoted  by  Mark  are  the 
beo-inning  of  the  good  news  about  Jesus  Christ  m 
connection  loitli  John  the  Baptist  as  his  forerunner  ; 
and  hence  it  is  that  Mark  heads  and  introduces  his 
gospel  as  he  does.     Thus  Lange,  under  "  Doctrinal 
and  Ethical : "  "  The  Baptist  is  here,  as  in  the  gos- 
pel of  John.,  ch.  i.,  the  reioresentative  and  final  ex- 
pression of  the  lohole  Old  Testament.     But  the  Old 
Testament  itself,  terminating  in  him,  becomes  one 
great  forerunner,  and  the  voice  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
in  the  wilderness,  which  proclaims  the  manifestation 
of  Christ ;  that  is,  it  becomes  a  compendious  intro- 
duction to  the  original  New  Testament  springing 
from  heaven."     So  Starke  :  "  Thus  the  last  messen- 
ger of  the  old  covenant  points  to  i\iQ  first  of  the  neio^ 
'  So  also  Gerlach,  who  speaks  of  "  John's  baptism 
as    the    conclusion,    and     consequently,   also,    the 
1  Gen.  iii.,  15  ;  see,  also,  John  viii.,  42-49,  1  John  Hi.,  8-24. 


152      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

epitome,  of  all  that  the  legal  econoimj  contained  in 
itself."  In  maintaining  that  John's  ministry  be- 
longed to  the  Gospel  dispensation,  and  that  John's 
baptism  was  Christian  baptism,  Mr.  Howell  seems 
to  me  to  maintain  essentially  that  the  forerunner 
was  the  Messiah,  and  that  the  Old  Testament  is  the 
New. 

To  strengthen  a  position,  the  weakness  of  which, 
I  think,  he  must  have  felt,  he  makes  the  Baptist 
say,  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  "  "  to  the  multitude^' 
although  there  is  no  such  statement  in  Scripture, 
and  the  inference  is  that  the  language  was  addressed 
to  his  disciples  ;  for  he  repeated  it  "  next  day  "  to 
two  of  them,  one  of  whom  recorded  it  aft^r  all  the 
other  Evangelists  had  written  their  narratives,  and 
had  said  nothing  about  it,  although  the  saying  was 
so  remarkable.  Had  it  been  part  of  his  public 
teaching,  it  would  certainly  have  been  mentioned  as 
such  by  Matthew,  Mark,  or  Luke,  for  it  was  a  far 
more  wonderful  declaration  than  that  which  is  record- 
ed of  him  by  them  all :  "  The  Kingdom  of  Heaven 
is  at  hand."  This  was  appropriate  to  his  mission  ; 
and  that  was  not  ;  hence  it  is  to  be  inferred  that  it 
was  spoken  privately.  Moreover,  had  the  words  in 
question  been  uttered  "  to  the  multitude,"  what  must 
they  have  thought  of  the  Baptist  when  he  sent  his 


APPENDIX.  153 

disciples  to  inquire  of  this  same  Jesus,  "  Art  thou 
he  that  should  come,  or  look  we  for  another  ?  " 
For  it  was  publicly,  and  in  presence  of  those  who 
had  listened  to  his  preaching,  and  in  all  probability 
had  submitted  to  his  baptism,^  that  his  messengers 
propounded  his  question  ;  for,  "  as  they  deimrted, 
Jesus  began  to  say  to  the  multitudes  concerning 
John,  What  went  ye  out  to  see  ?  " 

From  such  a  make-shift  as  this,  and  the  other, 
that  John  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Coming  One 
{oEpxoM^^o'^),  it  is  to  be  expected  that  Mr.  Howell 
denies  that  the  disciples  whom  Paul  found  at 
Ephesus  were  rebaptized,  if  he  does  not  make  Luke, 
like  "  Peter  "  in  the  "  Dialogue,"  say  something  al- 
together different. 

Mr.  Howell  also  maintains,  that,  if  John's  bap- 
tism belonged  to  the  old  dispensation,  because  it  was 
observed  before  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
so  does  the  supper ;  but  he  surely  forgets,  first, 
that  John  received  his  authority  to  ba2:)tize  directly 
from  God,  and  second,  that  Jesus  came  to  His 
forerunner's  baptism  q/ifer  multitudes  had  submitted 
to  it,  and  before  He  had  revealed  Himself  as  the 
Messiah  ;  iohile,in person,  He  instituted  the  commun- 
ion,  explained  its  meaning,  fixed  its  formula,  and 
2  Matt,  xi.,  7  ;  see,  also,  Luke  vii.,  29. 


154      CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

enjoined  its  observance,  just  before  He  was  led  as  a 
lamb  to  the  slaughter. 

I  know  that  none  but  a  bigot  refuses  to  tolerate, 
or  fails  to  respect,  honest  differences  of  opinion  ;  but 
I  confess  that  I  find  it  hard  to  deal  gently  with  a 
writer  who  treats  the  arguments  of  such  a  confess- 
edly gifted  and  scholarly  oj)ponent,  so  contemptu- 
ously, who  builds  his  own  on  such  a  sandy  founda- 
tion, and  utters  them  as  if  his  say-so  were  fully 
equivalent  to  "  thus  saith  the  Lord." 

(8.) 

I  notice  that  Andrew  Fuller,  in  his  answer  to  John 
Carter,  uses  the  following  language  :  "  We  verily  be- 
lieve you  to  be  unbaptized,  not  merely  as  being  only 
sprinkled,  but  as  receiving  it  at  a  time  when  you 
could  not  actively  'put  on  Christ,'  which  'as  many  as 
were  baptized'  in  primitive  ages  did. — Gal.  iii.,  27."'''' 
Now  this  is  not  what  Paul  says  :  for  two  words, 
which  are  very  important,  especially  in  their  bearing 
on  Mr.  Fuller's  assumption  that  Jesus  and  the  Apos- 
tles received  Christian  baptism,  are  omitted.  The 
text  reads,  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized 
INTO  Christ  have  put  on  Christ,"  and  implies,  as  has 

*  Complete  Works  of  Rev.  Andrew  Fuller,  Boston,  1833,  vol.  ii., 
page  6CG. 


APPENDIX.  155 

been  remarked  in  this  book,  that  some  of  the  Gala- 
tian  Christians,  like  the  Bomans,  and  the  Ephesian 
"  disciples,"  had  not  been  so  baptized.  I  append  a 
few  examples  of  the  meaning  of  o6oi,  when  it  is  used 
without  qualification,  as  it  is  in  the  two  cases  of  its 
connection  with  the  baptized  : 

1.  "4s  many  as  touched  were  made  perfectly  wliole." — Matt, 
xiv.  36. 

The  statement  is  not  that  all  touched  the  hem  of 
His  garment,  but  that  all  ivho  touched  were  made 
perfectly  whole ;  and  the  implication  is  that  there 
were  some  who  did  not  touch,  and  were  not  healed. 

2.  "  Neither  was  there  any  among  them  that  lacked  ;  for 
as  many  as  were  possessed  of  lands  and  houses  sold  them,  and 
brought  the  prices  of  the  things  that  were  sold  and  laid  them 
down  at  the  apostles'  feet." — Acts  iv.  34. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  makes  a  clear  distinc- 
tion between  those  who  had  lands  or  houses,  and 
those  wlio  had  noty  unless  we  hold,  that,  because 
"  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ/' 
meant  "  you  have  all  been  baptized  into  Christ," 
Luke  intended  to  tell  us  that  the  j^'i^i'initive  Chris- 
tians WITHOUT  EXCEPTION  oivnecl  Teal  estate.  As 
many  as  agree  to  this,  and  have  neither  houses  nor 
lands,  are  yet  possessed  of  valuable  personal  proper- 
ty as  surely  as  consistency  is  Sijeivel. 


156      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

3.  "  For  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also  per- 
ish without  law." — Eom.  ii.  12. 

If  this  means  that  all  had  sinned  without  law,  then, 
in  a  double  sense,  the  Jews  were  lawless. 

4.  "  For  as  many  as  are  of  the  works  of  the  law  are  under 
the  curse." — Gal.  iii.,  10. 

But  those  who  were  of  the  justification,  which  is 
by  faith  in  Christ  were  neither  "  of  the  works  of  the 
law,"  nor  "  under  the  curse  ;  "  and  this  was  the  pre- 
cise distinction  which  the  Apostle  desired  to  impress 
upon  the  foolish  Galatians,  who  had  been  bewitched, 
that  they  should  not  obey  the  truth. 

5.  "  But  unto  you,  I  say,  and  unto  the  rest  in  Thyatira, 
as  many  as  have  not  this  doctrine,  and  which  have  not  known 
the  depths  of  Satan,  as  they  speak ;  I  will  put  upon  you 
none  other  burden." — Eev.  ii.,  24. 

The  legitimate  inference  that  some  of  of  the  Thy- 
atireans  had  this  doctrine  is  made  an  indisputable 
fact  by  the  context.  That  6doi  pointed  at  two  par- 
ties in  the  church  at  Thyatira,  is  acknowledged  and 
used,  as  follows,  by  Mr.  Fuller  himself,  in  dissuading 
a  missionary  at  Serampore  from  open  communion  : 

**  Whoever  they  were  that  were  thus  denominated,  it  was 
doubtless  some  person,  or  body  of  persons,  that  strove  to 
draw  off  the  church  from  her  purity,  and  to  introduce  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men-     It  seems,  too,  that 


APPENDIX.  157 

some  of  God's  servants  were  seduced  by  her ;  good  men, 
whom  your  plan  of  admission  would  have  tolerated.  And 
it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  censure  was  not  directed 
against  her  (Jezebel)  for  doing  so,  but  against  the  church 
for  suffering  it." 

But  here  Mr.  Fuller  falls  into  three  inaccu- 
racies ;  first,  in  saying  that  the  things  condemned 
were  mere  "  doctrines  "  when  the  Son  of  God  says, 
that  Jezebel  taught  and  seduced  His  servants  "  to 
commit  fornication,  and  to  cat  things  sacrificed  to 
idols;''  second,  in  saying  that  "  the  censure  is  not 
directed  against  her,"  when  the  Son  of  God  says, 
"  Behold  I  will  cast  her  into  a  bed,  and  them  that 
commit  adidtery  loith  her  into  great  tribulation,  ex- 
cept they  repent  of  their  deeds  ....  and  I  will  give 
unto  every  one  of  you  according  to  your  works  ;'' 
and,  third,  in  saying  that  the  censure  was  "  against 
the  church  for  suffering  it,"  when  the  Son  of  God 
addresses  himself  to  the  angel  of  the  church  at  Thy- 
atira  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  His  message. 
Whoever  the  angel  was  (the  name,  with  episcopus, 
was  borrowed  from  the  synagogue,  the  ruler  of  which 
was  so  called),he  had  failed  in  exposing  the  fornica- 
tion and  idolatry,  which  Jezebel  (whoever  she  was, 
or  whomsoever  she  represented),  had  promoted.  Of 
course  the  church  was  also  to  blame,  but,  of  the  two, 


158      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

the  rebuke  was  especially  addressed  to  him.  By  re- 
ferring to  the  last  six  verses  of  1  Cor.  vi.,  it  will  be 
seen  that  fornication  on  the  part  of  Christians  has  a 
double  meaning,  and  is  a  deeply  aggravated  sin  ;  for 
it  is  not  only  against  the  fornicator's  body,  but  also 
against  Christ,  of  whom  our  bodies  are  members. 
The  Thyatireans  who  were  ''^joined  unto  the  Lord,'* 
and  yet  followed  this  seducer,  committed  adidtery^ 
for  they  broke  their  vows  to  Him.  I  confess  that  it 
was  such  gross  and  glaring  misapplications  of  pass- 
ages like  this  to  communion  with  Christians,  many 
of  whom  were  far  above  me  in  nearness  to  Christ, 
which  made  me  feel  that  our  practice  must  be  wrong 
when  such  a  defence  of  it  was  so  common. 

In  the  same  letter  Mr.  Fuller  remarks  :  "  To  me  it 
appears  that  pedobaptism  opened  the  door  for  the  Ko- 
mish  apostasy."  But  this  is  putting  an  effect  for 
the  cause,  if  the  commonly  received  opinion  among 
Baptists  be  correct, — that  it  was  in  the  heresy  of  No 
Salvation  without  water  baptism  that  pedobap- 
tism began.*  "  The  Komish  apostasy  "  was  easy  and 
inevitable  when  the  importance  of  an  outward  rite 
was  so  awfully  overestimated.  And  who  can  picture 
all  the  apostasies  from  Christ  which  owe  their  origin 
to  this  deep  seated  disposition  in  man — the  blending 
*  Torrey's  Neander,  vol.  I.,  page  3L3. 


APPENDIX.  159 

of  superstition  and  selfishness  which  expects  the 
kingdom  of  God  to  come  with  observation,  and 
wishes  to  make  the  salvation  of  the  soul  something 
far  easier,  and  less  subjective,  than  Jesus  declared 
it  to  be.  For  "  when  He  had  called  the  people  unto 
Him,  with  his  disciples  also,  He  said  unto  them, 
Whoever  will  come  after  Me  let  him  deny  himself, 
and  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow  Me."^  "  And  if 
thine  eye  oifend  thee,  pluck  it  out,  and  cast  it  from 
thee  :  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  with  one 
eye  rather  than  having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell- 
fire."^ 

"  Let  it  be  also  particularly  noticed,"  says  Mr. 
Fuller,  "  that  our  brethren  who  plead  for  receiving 
Christians  as  Christians  keceive  them  to  the  or- 
dinances AS  UNDERSTOOD  AND  PRACTISED  BY  THEM, 

and  this  we  do.  If  the  prejudice  of  a  pious  Catho- 
lic would  permit  him  to  request  to  join  with  them 
at  the  Lord's  supper,  they  would,  as  we  have  often 
been  told,  receive  him,  but  to  what  ?  Would  they 
provide  a  wafer  for  him,  and  excuse  him  from  drink- 
ing of  the  cup  ?  '  No,'  they  would  say,  ^  we  are  willing 
to  receive  you  to  the  Lord's  supper,  in  the  way  we 
understand  and  practise  it;  but  we  cannot  divide 
the  wine   from  the  bread  without  dispensing  with 

1  Mark  viii.,  34.     2  Matt,  xviii.,  9. 


160      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

an  essential  part  of  the  institution/  "  Surely  Mr. 
Fuller  knew  that  there  was  no  essential  difference 
in  the  manner  of  observing  the  Lord's  supper  among 
Protestants,  that  many  in  every  denomination  who 
observed  it  at  all  would  gladly  have  partaken  with 
him,  if  he  had  not  excluded  them,  and  that  it  was 
stretching  a  point  to  suppose  that  a  Koman  Catholic 
would  request  to  commune  with  oj)en-communion 
Baptists  unless  he  had  decided  to  conform  to  their 
method  for  the  occasion.  I  do  not  see  how  Mr.  Ful- 
ler could  say,  "  So  do  we,"  of  receiving  "  Christians 
as  Christians  at  the  Lord's  table,  for  it  was  never 
as  such  merely,  but  always  as  such  having  been  pre- 
viously dipped  in  water  on  profession  of  their  faith 
in  Christ,  that  his  party  received  each  other,  and 
every  communicant  at  the  communion.  Nay,  more, 
they  required  membership  of  good  standing  in  a 
church  of  the  same  faith  and  order.  But  I  may  not 
understand  his  argument.  Nor  is  it  altogether  cor- 
rect that  the  open  communionists  received  ^^  Chris- 
tians as  Christians"  "to  the  ordinances,  as  imder- 
stood  and  practised  hij  tliemi^^  for  an  open  commun-  . 
ionist  may  observe  the  Lord's  supper  as  a  baptized 
person,  himself,  and  yet  feel  at  liberty,  and  most 
happy,  to  sit, with  his  brother  who  partakes  simply 
as   a  Christian,   or   as   baptized,   although   merely 


APPENDIX.  161 

Sprinkled.     Mr.  Fuller  concludes  the  paragraph  as 
follows  : 

"  Such  is  our  answer  to  a  pious  Pedobaptist.  "We  are  will- 
ing to  receive  you  to  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  as  we  under- 
stand and  practise  them  ;  but  we  cannot  divide  the  one  from 
the  other  without  dispensing  with  an  imtitution  of  Christ.'^'* 

But  instead  of  showing  that  Christ  so  connected 
the  two  ordinances  that  the  result  mentioned  follows 
necessarily  from  open  communion,  Mr.  Fuller  takes 
it  for  granted  that  the  Apostles  were  not  only  bap- 
tized, but  also  that  their  baptism  was  Christian  bap- 
tism ;  and  he  very  skilfully  evades  the  rebaptism  of 
the  Ephesian  disciples.  See  my  chapter  on  the  Bap- 
tism of  the  First  Communicants,  and  Appendix  (4). 

On  the  ground  that  instrumental  music  was  part  of 
the  ceremonial  law,  which  was  abrogated  by  the 
Messiah,  and  that  there  was  no  authority  for  such 
means  of  praise  in  the  New  Testament,  Mr.  Fuller, 
like  the  great  majority  of  the  Baptists  of  his  day,  and 
the  early  English  Baptists  without  exception,  was 
opposed  to  the  use  of  musical  instruments  in 
churches.  But  there  are  a  great  many  other  things 
besides  our  organs,  costly  as  they  are,  which  would  be 
abandoned  if  the  latter  principle  were  strictly  ap- 
plied. I  take  it  that  the  steeples  would  come  down, 
with  the  bells  also  ;  that  we  would  worship  in  upper 


162      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

rooms,  or  plain  meeting-houses,  instead  of  magnifi- 
cent "  churches,"  some  of  them  costing  more  than  a 
hundred  dollars  for  every  year  which  has  passed  since 
Jesus  lay  in  His  borrowed  grave  ;  that  the  baptist- 
ery would  give  place  to  Nature's  fonts,  and  that  deal- 
ers in  water-proof  garments  would  do  a  little  less 
business  in  the  ecclesiastical  line.  I  do  not  say  that 
I  am  opposed  to  these  things,  but  simply  suggest, 
that,  with  others  of  far  greater  importance,  like  Sun- 
day-schools, and  missionary  societies,  for  example, 
they  would  disappear,  if  the  principle  which  is  so 
generally  received  had  but  a  fair  application. 

Eight  nobly  did  this  eminent,  gifted,  and  now 
sainted  servant  of  God,  conclude  a  posthumous  pub- 
lication on  the  Terms  of  Communion  : 

"  I  am  willing  to  allow  that  open  communion  may  be  prac- 
tised from  a  conscientious  persuasion  of  its  being  the  mind 
of  Christ ;  and  they  ought  to  allow  the  same  of  strict  com- 
munion ;  and  thus  instead  of  reproaching  one  another  with 
bigotry  on  the  one  hand,  or  carnal  policy  on  the  other,  we 
should  confine  our  inquiries  to  the  precepts  and  examples  of  the  New 
TestamenV 

But  he  scarcely  kept  his  argument  within  these 
limits,  for  in  the  same  treatise  he  used  the  following 
language : 

"  K  there  be  no  instituted  connection  between  them  (bap- 
tism and  communion)  it  must  go  far  toward  establishing  the 


APPENDIX.  163 

position  of  Mr.  Bunyan,  tlaat  ♦  non-baptism  (at  least  where 
it  arises  from  error)  is  no  bar  to  communion.'  If  Mr.  Ban- 
yan's position  be  tenable,  however,  it  is  rather  singular  that  it 
should  have  been  so  long  undiscovered  ;  for  it  does  not  apjjear  that 
such  a  notion  was  ever  advanced  till  he  or  his  contemporaries 
advanced  it.  Whatever  difference  of  opinion  had  subsisted 
among  Christians  concerning  the  mode  and  subjects  of  bap- 
tism, I  have  seen  no  evidence  that  baptism  was  considered  by  any 
as  unconnected  with  or  unnecessary  to  the  supper.  *  It  is  certain,' 
says  Dr.  Doddridge,  '  that  as  far  as  our  knowledge  of  primi- 
tive antiquity  reaches,  no  unbaptized  person  received  the  Lord's 
iupper?'' 

Here  the  argument  is  entirely  from  human  au- 
thority ;  but  Mr.  Fuller  has  the  candor  to  confess 
that  it  must  go  for  nothing  if  the  contrary  opinion 
"  be  well  established  from  the  Scriptures." 

I  think  I  have  shown  in  this  book  that  Christian 
baptism  and  communion  were  not  connected  by  their 
Author  as  their  connection  is  described  in  the  stand- 
ards of  the  churches  to-day.  It  is  a  fact,  too,  that 
the  common  theory  on  the  subject  is  repugnant  to 
the  instinct,  and  set  aside  by  the  practice,  of  individ- 
ual members,  and  particular  congregations,  in  an  in- 
creasing degree.  In  some  Pedobaptist  churches  the 
invitation  to  the  communion  includes  all  who  love 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity,  and  in  others  the 
profession  of  His  name  is  added,  but  left,  as  I  have 
been  informed,  to  the  interpretation  of  the  audience. 


164      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

There  are  many  Pedobaptists  ministers  who  ac- 
cept the  alleged  dependence  of  communion  on  pre- 
vious water  baptism  as  a  clturcJi  doctrine  rather  than 
as  an  invariable  order  of  Christ's  appointment.  That 
it  has  been  a  church  doctrine  since  the  time  of  the  ear- 
liest fathers,  cannot,  I  suppose,  be  successfully  denied, 
but  so  has  each  of  the  ideas  that  the  ordinance  is 
invalid  unless  administered  by  an  ordained  minister, 
and  that  the  bread  is  the  very  flesh,  and  the  wine 
the  very  blood  of  the  Kedeemer.  In  describing  and 
condemning  the  heretics  of  his  time,  Ignatius,  who 
was  contemporaneous  with  the  Apostle  John,  writes 
to  the  Smyrneans  as  follows  : 

•'  They  abstain  from  the  eucharist,  and  from  public  offices 
(prayers),  because  they  confess  not  the  eucharist  to  be  the 
flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  which  suffered  for  our  sins, 
and  which  the  Father  of  His  goodness  raised  again  from  the 
dead.  And  for  this  cause,  contradicting  the  gift  of  God, 
they  die  in  their  disputes.  But  much  better  would  it  be  for 
them  to  receive  it,  that  they  might  one  day  rise  through  it. 
*  *  *  See  that  ye  all  follow  your  bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ 
the  Father  ;  and  the  presbytery  as  the  Apostles  ;  and  rever- 
ence the  deacons  as  the  command  of  God.  Let  no  man  do 
anything  of  what  belongs  to  the  church  separately  from  the 
bishop.  Let  that  eucharist  be  looked  upon  as  well  estab- 
lished, which  is  either  offered  by  the  bishop,  or  by  him  to 
whom  the  bishop  has  given  his  consent.  "Wheresoever  the 
bishop  shall  appear,  there  let  the  people  (the  multitude)  be 


APPENDIX.  165 

also ;  as  -where  Jesus  Clirist  is  there  is  the  Catholic  church. 
It  is  not  lawful  icithout  the  Mshop  either  to  baptize  or  to  celebrate 
the  holy  communion  ;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  approve  of,  that 
is  also  pleasing  unto  God  ;  that  so  whatever  is  done  may  be 
sure  and  well  done."* 

It  is  the  bisliop,  the  bishop^  throughout  his  epis- 
tles, and  quite  often  in  the  same  style  through 
those  of  Clement  and  Polycarp,  to  say  nothing  of 
Barnabas  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas. 

Human  nature  does  not  take  readily  to  the  com- 
mand of  Christ  to  call  no  man  master ;  for,  instead  of 
serving  them,  the  powerful  "exercise  dominion"  over 
the  weak,  which  is  all  the  easier,  inasmuch  as  weak- 
ness being  in  admiration  and  awe  of  power,  and 
hoping  also  to  benefit  by  it,  loves  well  to  follow  it. 
Hence  either  the  temporal  or  spiritual  authority  of 
an  office  is  so  easily  increased,  that,  if  it  be  not  con- 
stantly limited,  it  increases  itself  Then,  too,  a  mul- 
tiplication of  offices  arises  on  the  one  hand  from  the 
disposition  of  governing,  and,  on  the  other,  from  that 
of  courting  government.  The  strength  and  univer- 
sality of  these  natural  tendencies,  and  of  many  others, 
are  amply  illustrated  in  church  history. 

*  The  Epistle  of  St.  Ignatius  to  the  Smyrneans,  sec.  vii.  and  viii., 
of  Wake's  Apostolic  Fathers,  Phila.  reprint,  1846,  pp.  115,  116. 

For  proofs  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  see 
"Preliminary  Discourse"  {lUd.  p.  83). 


166      CLOSE   COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 


Was  it  not  likely,  I  had  almost  said  inevitable, 
that  the  influence  of  Judaism  in  the  early  churches 
would  show  itself  in  making  too  much  of  an  initia- 
tory rite  from  a  too  close  connection  of  it  with  the 
benefits  of  the  system  to  which  it  belonged  ?  We 
know  what  havoc  of  the  peace  and  spirituality  of 
primitive  Christendom  was  made  by  the  overestimate 
of  the  claims  of  circumcision.  The  same  disposition, 
taken  into  the  new  dispensation,  and  at  length  giv- 
ing up  the  old  rite,  would  naturally  fasten  on  one  of 
the  two  Christian  ordinances  as  initiatory  in  the  Jew- 
ish sense.  Indeed,  when  we  consider  that  the  idea 
that  water  baptism  is  the  only  medium  of  saving 
grace,  can  be  traced  as  a  church  doctrine  almost  to  the 
apostolic  age,  we  need  be  less  surprised  at  its  subse- 
quent unvarying  connection  with  the  supper  ;  for  if 
it  appeared  proper  that  a  man  should  commune  as 
saved  by  Christ,  and  thus  only ;  and  also  that  sal- 
vation was  impossible  except  by  ivater  baptism,  the 
latter  was  necessarily  required  before  the  former  was 
allowed.  But  as  a  totally  different  idea  obtains 
among  the  mass  of  Protestants,  it  is  not  strange  that 
in  the  absence  of  any  precept  making  water  baptism 
a  prerequisite  of  the  Lord's  suj^per,  the  practice  of 
open  communion  is  increasing,  and  the  desire  for  it 
still  more  so. 


APPENDIX.  167 

But  open  comnmnion  will  be  enjoyed  by  only  those 
who  feel  that  it  is  a  liberty  and  a  blessing,  which 
they  have  in  Christ.  Mr.  Fuller  tried  it,  but  not  be- 
ing sure  of  its  propriety,  he  failed  to  experience  that 
benefit  which  would  have  led  him  to  make  a  custom 
of  his  experiment,  the  making  and  result  of  which 
he  confesses  as  follows  :  "So  far  have  I  been  from 
indulging  a  sectarian  or  party  spirit,  that  my  desire 
for  communion  with  all  who  are  friendly  to  the  Sav- 
iour has  in  one  instance  led  me  practically  to  deviate 
from  my  general  sentiments  on  the  subject ;  the  re- 
flection on  which,  however,  having  afforded  me  no 
satisfaction,  I  do  not  intend  to  repeat  it."  As  it  was 
a  practical  deviation  from  Ms  general  sentiments  ^  it 
could  not  be  a  vehicle  of  grace  and  joy,  for  "he 
that  doubteth  is  damned  if  he  eat ; "  that  is,  he  is 
condemned  by  his  own  conscience.  But  if  the  act 
had  been  spontaneous  and  untrammelled,  an  expres- 
sion of  that  perfect  love  which  casteth  out  fear,  then, 
in  communion  with  Christ,  this  beloved  disciple 
would  have  felt  his  union  with  his  Christian  kind- 
red, who  were  receiving  the  same  spiritual  life  from 
the  same  divine  source — that  heavenly  experience  of 
which  the  members  of  the  family,  who  are  yet  pil- 
grims, have  but  foretastes  on  the  homeward  way. 


168      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

(9.) 

In  a  recent  sermon  entitled  "  Baptism  before  Com- 
munion," by  Kev.  A.  J.  F.  Behrends,  he  remarks  of 
the  latter  :  "It  is  the  Lord's  table  spread  by  and 
under  the  protection  of  the  church.  In  the  very  act 
of  spreading  the  table,  she  claims  to  judge  upon  the 
qualifications  of  the  applicants,  else  what  right  haa 
she  to  touch  these  emblems  with  one  of  her  fingers  ?  " 
But  can  she  alter  the  qualifications  indicated  by  the 
Lord,  or  differ  about  them  at  different  times,  with- 
out proving,  as  Protestants  profess  to  hold,  and 
Baptists  most  of  all,  that  she  is  fallible,  and  that  it 
is  well  for  her,  and  the  world,  that  he  is  King  in 
Zion  ?  But  ivhat  is  the  church  which  is  thus  held 
up  as  the  spreader,  the  guardian,  and  the  judge  of 
the  Lord's  table  ?  The  Koman  Catholic,  which  of 
all  existing  Christian  organizations  is  at  once  the 
largest  and  most  ancient  ?  Mr.  Behrends  would 
promptly  answer  "  No  ; "  for,  believing  itself  to  be 
"the  church,"  and  to  possess  the  power  which  he 
ascribes  to  "  the  church,"  it  recognizes  sprinkling  as 
baptism,  an  infant  as  a  proper  subject,  and  gives  one 
of  the  elements  to  the  laity  thus  sprinkled  in  infancy. 

If  we  suggest  the  Presbyterian,  his  response  must 
still  be  in  the  negative,  for  it,  too,  changing  both  the 


APPENDIX.  169 

mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  maintains,  in  his 
opinion,  a  communion  of  the  unbaptized.  It  is  clear 
that  it  is  neither  the  invisible  church,  nor  the 
aggregate  of  Christian  churches,  but  the  Baptist 
church,  and  the  Baptist  church  only,  which,  in  the 
logic  of  the  close-communion  view,  spreads,  protects, 
and  controls,  the  table  of  the  Lord. 
Depend  upon  it  that  it  is  not 

PmvATE  Interpretation, 

AND 

Open  Communion, 

which  is  printed  on  the  ticket  for  "  the  express  train 
that  stops  at  no  station  this  side  of  Eome  ;  "  but 

The  Church,  The  Church, 

AND 

Close   Communion  ; 

and  it  is  a  matter  of  little  consequence  whether  one 
purchases  at  an  Episcopal,  or  a  Baptist,  at  a  Metho- 
dist, or  a  Presbyterian  office,  for  under  different  names 
the  track  is  the  same,  and,  whether  or  not  it  leads  to 
Kome,  it  is  the  Koman  road.  Churchism  in  the  Ko- 
man  Catholic  sense  is  growing  in  parts  of  almost  all 
the  Protestant  churches,  and  is  struggling  with  the 
true  Protestant  element.     It  is  one  thing  to  believe 


170      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

in  "  the  church/'  and  quite  another  to  feel  that  it  is 
your  church,  and  yours  only. 

"Cyprian,"  says  Mr.  Behrends,  "refused  to  ad- 
minister baptism  to  an  applicant  who  had  received 
baptism  at  the  hands  of  heretics — which  was  con- 
sidered irregular  and  invalid — because  the  man  had 
repeatedly  partaken  of  the  supper  ;  an  evidence  that 
the  church  of  that  day  looked  upon  baptism  subse- 
quent to  the  supper  as  an  incongruity  and  con- 
tradiction." But  we  Baptists  who  often  baptize 
Christians  who  have  partaken  of  the  communion  for 
years  in  other  churches,  must  either  think  that  it  is 
not  the  Lord's  supper  which  they  celebrate,  or  differ 
widely  from  Cyprian.  He  thought  that  communion 
had  so  ratified  the  baptism  of  this  man,  that  its  re- 
petition would  be  improper,  although  in  itself  he  re- 
garded it  as  null  and  void.  "  Baj)tism  at  the  hands 
of  heretics ''  was  a  subject  on  which  Christendom 
was  profoundly  agitated  and  clearly  divided,  before 
Cyprian's  time.  But  the  discussion  was  renewed, 
and  hotly  pressed,  while  he  was  bishop  of  Carthage. 
He  held  Tertullian's  view  in  opposition  to  the  Koman 
see,  and  to  the  Western  churches  in  general.  If  a 
converted  heretic  came  to  the  church  at  Kome,  he 
was  received  as  a  baptized  Christian,  and  confirmed 
by  the  bishop.     It  was  therefore  by  only  a  party  that 


APPENDIX. 


171 


"  baptism  at  the  hand  of  heretics  "  was  considered 
"  irregular  and  invalid,"  and  hence  no  action  based 
on  this  idea  can  properly  be  predicated  of  "the 
church  of  that  day." 

The  case  to  which  Mr.  Behrends  alludes  is  thus 
recorded  in  Neander's  History  of  the  Christian  Reli- 
gion :* 

«  There  was  in  the  church  of  Alexandria  a  converted  here- 
tic who  lived  as  a  member  of  the  church  for  many  years,  and 
participated  in  the  various  acts  of  worship.  Happening 
once  to  be  present  at  a  baptism  of  catechumens,  he  remem- 
bered that  the  baptism  which  he  himself  had  received  in 
the  sect  from  which  he  was  converted  (probably  a  Gnostic 
sect),  bore  no  resemblance  whatever  to  the  one  he  now  wit- 
nessed. Had  he  been  aware  that  whoever  possesses  Christ  in 
faith,  possesses  all  that  is  necessary  to  his  growth  in  grace, 
and  to  the  salvation  of  his  soul,  this  circumstance  could  not 
have  given  him  so  much  uneasiness.  But  as  this  was  not  so 
clear  to  him,  he  doubted  as  to  his  title  to  consider  himself  a 
real  Christian,  and  fell  into  the  greatest  distress  and  anxi- 
ety, believing  himself  to  be  without  baptism,  and  the  grace 
of  baptism.  In  tears  he  threw  himself  at  the  bishop's  feet 
and  besought  him  for  baptism.  The  bishop  endeavored 
to  quiet  his  fears  ;  he  assured  him  that  he  could  not,  at  this 
late  period,  after  he  had  so  long  partaken  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord,  be  baptized  anew.  It  was  sufficient  that 
he  had  Hved  for  so  long  a  time  in  the  fellowship  of  the 
church,  and  all  he  had  to  do  was  to  approach  the  holy  sup- 

*  Torrey's  Neander,  vol.  i.,  page  323. 


172      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 

per  with  unwavering  faith  and  a  good  conscience.  But  the 
disquieted  man  found  it  impossible  to  overcome  his  scruples 
and  regain  his  tranquillity.  So  destructive  to  peace  of  con- 
science were  the  effects  of  such  tenacious  adherence  to  out- 
ward things,  of  not  knowing  how  to  rise  with  freedom  to 
those  things  of  the  spirit  which  the  inward  man  apprehends 
by  faith." 

Cyprian  believed  that  the  God  of  the  heretics  (some 
of  whom  may  have  been  Baptists)  was  not  the  true 
God,  and  that  their  Christ  was  not  the  true  Christ ; 
hence  that  their  baptism  was  nothing.  This  posi- 
tion he  defended  with  all  his  energy,  and  bated  not  a 
jot,  although  he  was  opposed  by  Stephanus  of 
Rome,  who  excommunicated  the  bishops  of  Asia 
Minor,  Cappadocia,  Galatia,  and  Cilicia,  as  Anabap- 
tists. Yet  so  considerate  of  circumstances  was  Cy- 
prian, and  so  free  to  shape  his  course  acordingly, 
that  he  actually  exhorted  this  man,  whom  he  consid- 
ered unhaptized,  to  "  approach  the  holy  supj^er  with 
univavering  faith  and  a  good  conscience.'^'  Thus,  in 
one  case,  at  least,  and  against  greater  difficulties 
than  prevent  Mr.  Behrends  from  following  his  exam- 
ple, Cyprian  was  an  open  communionist. 

But  why  not  mention  other  points  of  difference 
between  Cyprian  and  the  ninteenth-century  Baptists 
in  America,  or  say  something  of  what  would  surely 
be  called  the  popish  superstitions  of  "  the  church  of 


APPENDIX.  173 

that  day,"  so  that  the  people  may  judge  of  the  value 
of  its  authority,  and  of  his  on  the  subject  in  hand  ? 
His  defence  of  the  clinici  was  certainly  liberal  for  him, 
but  probably  it  was  made  because  they  were  inside 
of  "  the  church/'     Said  he  : 

"  The  breast  of  the  believer  is  washed,  the  soul  of  man  is 
cleansed,  by  the  merits  of  faith.  In  the  sacraments  of  salva- 
tion, where  necessity  compels  and  God  gives  permission,  the 
divine  thing,  though  outwardly  abridged,  lestows  all  that  it  implies 
on  the  faithful.  Or  if  any  one  supposes  that  they  have  ob- 
tained nothing  because  they  have  been  merely  sprinMed  with 
the  water  of  salvation,  they  must  not  be  so  deceived  them- 
selves, as  to  think  that  they  ought  therefore  to  be  baptized 
over  again,  in  case  they  recover  from  their  sickness.  But 
if  those  who  have  once  been  consecrated  by  the  baptism  of 
the  church,  cannot  again  be  baptized,  why  fill  them  with  per- 
plexity in  regard  to  their  faith  and  the  grace  of  the  Lord."* 

This  bishop  distinguished  between  the  outward  and 
the  inward  when  it  suited  him,  and  when  it  was  oth- 
erwise he  confounded  them.  Much  closer  to  apostol- 
ical times,  we  find  Clement  of  Eome,  supposed  to  be 
St.  Peter's  successor,  so  thoroughly  convinced  that  the 
phoenix  revived  from  its  own  ashes  as  to  use  it  in 
proof  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  ;f 
an  argument  which  was  repeated  by  Tertullian,  Ori- 
gen,  Cyril,  and  the  generality  of  the  ancient  fathers. 

♦  Toney's  Neander,  vol.  i.  p.  310. 

j- Juii.  Notae  in  Clem.  p.  34.  Wakes  Apostolic  Fathers,  p.  89. 


174      CLOSE  COMMUNION,  OR  OPEN  COMMUNION  ? 


Ignatius,  whose  writings  were  preserved  by  his 
friend  and  fellow-martyr,  Polycarp,  both  of  whom 
are  supposed  to  have  been  disciples  of  the  Apostle 
John,  wrote  to  the  Tralleans  that  they  were  all  to 
reverence  the  deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  the  bishop  as 
the  Father,  and  the  presbytery  as  the  sanhedrim  of 
God,  and  the  college  of  the  Apostles  ;  and  that  with- 
out these  (three  orders)  there  was  no  cJiurcJi^'  If 
a  volume  of  the  opinions  of  the  fathers,  which  they 
felt  and  showed  as  convictions,  could  but  be  placed 
in  the  hands  of  our  deacons,  and  read  aloud  at  our 
social  meetings,  it  might  increase  their  interest,  and 
be  a  means  of  grace  in  convincing  many  credulous 
worshippers  of  the  fancied  heroes  of  a  falsely  pictured 
past,  that,  after  all,  the  Master  is  the  best  Teacher, 
that  His  word  is  the  only  standard,  and  that  private 
interpretation  is  at  once  an  inalienable  Christian 
right,  and  an  essential  condition  of  the  reign  of 
Truth.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  speak  lightly  of  the 
glorious  company  of  the  early  confessors  and 
martyrs,  but  I  cannot  forget  what  makes  their  glory 
all  the  brighter,  that  they  were  fallible,  like  us, 
that  they  were  influenced  by  their  surroundings,  and 
that  they  were  the  subjects  of  many  and  conflicting 
notions,  which  most  of  us  would  ridicule  as  vagaries, 
or  lament   as   delusions.     It   has   been  boldly  but 

*  Wake's  Apostolic  Fathers,  p.  102. 


APPENDIX.  175 

truly  said  that  the  further  back  we  go  in  the  Chris- 
tian era  toward  the  Apostles,  the  more  ignorance  we 
find  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and,  it  may  be  added,  the 
stronger  tendency  to  superstition,  and  the  closer  con- 
nection between  forms  and  saving  grace. 

No  matter  what  has  been  thought  or  done  since 
Christ  ascended,  it  is  never  by  divine  right  that  "the 
church,"  or  any  of  the  churches,  takes  the  Lord's  sup- 
per out  of  His  hands,  who  is  at  once  its  Author  and 
its  Subject,  and  conditions  it  as  it  was  not  conditioned 
by  Him.  I  have  tried  to  show  that  if  either  His  exam- 
ple, or  Paul's  teaching,  were  followed,  believers  would 
feel  at  home,  and  be  welcomed,  at  this  memorial  of 
their  one  and  only  Saviour  in  whatever  church  they 
found  it.  And  I  hope  that  the  time  is  coming  when 
Christians  of  every  name,  still  holding  many  differ- 
ences, will  rejoice  to  hold  this  ordinance  as  they 
receive  their  life  from  Christ,  in  common — as  theirs 
because  it  is  His,  and  His  because  it  is  theirs.  But 
if  we  cannot  thus  agree,  yet  the  truth  which  might 
be  so  beautifully  symbolized  remains  forever — that 
we  who  receive  Him  are  one  family,  heirs  of  God 
and  joint  heirs  with  Christ,  and  that  we  are  going 
home  together  through  the  same  difficulties,  and  with 
the  same  help,  to  our  "  inheritance  which  is  incor- 
ruptible, and  undefiled,  and  that  fadeth  not  away." 


DATE  DUE 

f^jt£dStfiMI^^^^ 

i^^k 

-iSBBa 

^9S 

Demco,  Inc.  38-293 

Theological  Seminary-Speer  Lil 


1    1012  01030  8585 


